Oops, re aptitude : was [Re: Edgy in the news]
Matt Zimmerman
mdz at ubuntu.com
Sun Nov 26 19:18:55 UTC 2006
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 07:55:02AM -0500, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> On 25/11/06, Mario Vukelic <mario.vukelic at dantian.org> wrote:
> > [sorry Matt, the pesky list reply again]
> >
> > On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 20:56 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > The official documentation *is* produced by the community.
> >
> > This starts to confuse the hell outta me. Now is it official or isn't
> > it. By "official" I mean, can I trust as a user that the instructions
> > given are reasonable correct? Matthew seems to say "no" [1]
>
> For me the concern is that an appropriate QAQC (quality
> assurance-quality control) process has taken place before the info
> gets posted. For example, for the upgrade path (which sparked this
> discussion) you'd have expected someone who's "in the know" to have
> checked over the post before proceeding without caveats (the caveats
> being added after-the-fact).
There is no formal process in place for this yet, as far as I know, but it
is needed. I can arrange developer resources to review documentation
for correctness before it is published as official.
Doc team: how do you want this to work?
--
- mdz
More information about the ubuntu-doc
mailing list