Sec: Unclassified RE: proposal for our repository structure post-breezy

[Sean Wheller]

On Wednesday 19 October 2005 08:09, Jerome Gotangco wrote:
> I suggest retaining the existing process and instead focus on creating
> compelling content and clean the existing docs (kubuntu and/or
> upstream) rather than discussing grand transition plans. Jonathan and
> Riddell are already talking about Dapper so let's build on that.
> Documentation is about making things simple for end users let's not
> forget that.

That's nice, but conversation and development can take place anywhere.

My interest is to improve the ability to build a kubuntu-doc team. 

What I see so far is that most people do not want to work on multiple distros 
mainly because they have no interest in the other distro or because of the 
energy required to focus on multiple projects is great or because Ubuntu is 
just the coolest thing since sliced bread and gets all the lime-light.

To over come this problem, make it easier to maintain multiple distro docs and 
avoid duplication of content the original intention was to employ techniques 
such as content reuse and profiling. We, or I, wanted to ship as HTML and 
optional PDF. The FAQ Guide was to be the first test, but that did not work 
because of reasons other than the profiling itself.

The other problem is the toolchain. KDE doc uses a different toolchain to that 
of Gnome. But that is another conversation altogether.

While I like the proposed new structure of the repos, I am not debating on 
that point. I am asking will it be better, in light of the fact that content 
reuse and profiling and shipping as HTML are not goals of the ubuntu-doc 
team, that the project move to a space where it can define its own realm 
under the development principles outlined by KDE docs. Is there any reason 
why kubuntu-doc will benefit from remaining where it is, or will it benefit 
from moving away and establishing its own web pages, repo, etc.?

jjesse mentioned the "lone ranger," well I was feeling very much the same and 
decided that while I started kubuntu-doc, I was not going to make the same 
mistakes I made in the early days of ubuntu-doc. When there was nobody, I 
continued working all alone. This time, when I found myself working alone, I 
felt that I had done enough to setup the kubuntu folders and build some 
outlines, update parts of the kquickguide, and provide the initial packages 
in order to get a foot print in Breezy, etc. Others needed to do work.  
jjesse and Riddell did some, and all that work will not be lost.

Perhaps my feelings are baseless.

The other option is not to fork the current code base. Leave it where it is, 
on the course it is and start a new project with a new base that is more 
tightly inter-linked to KDE doc. Long term this will be a good strategy 
especially considering the release of QT4 and the plans of the Plasma 
project.

-- 
Sean Wheller
Technical Author
sean at inwords.co.za
084-854-9408
http://www.inwords.co.za
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Registered Linux User #375355
http://wenzani.blogspot.com/