Oops, re aptitude : was [Re: Edgy in the news]

[Matthew East]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi

* Mario Vukelic:
> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 08:12 +0000, Matthew East wrote:
>> "by Canonical"?
>>
>> We obviously have a problem with this - everyone on this thread has
>> referred to that page as being "official" Ubuntu documentation. 
> 
> Hmmm. While I never have considered whether this is "official" as in
> "written by Canonical", I have certainly viewed it as THE (canonical, so
> to speak) upgrade instructions.
> 
> If Matthew now says that 'it's simply documentation written by the
> community, and is not either "official" or "by Canonical"' then it seems
> to me that there is no official upgrade documentation at all. This is a
> very wrong situation.
> 
> If there is an "official" upgrade doc, please point me to it.

If you define "official" as being something for which Canonical are
responsible, which seems to have been the theme of this sub-thread, then
not only is there no official upgrade documentation, there is hardly any
official documentation at all.

This sub thread is about how we convey the reliability of a particular
document to the user. The community wiki is not always reliable, because
anyone can edit it, and the documentation team or developers haven't
always reviewed the material.

For the record, upgrade instructions are contained in the release notes,
which are reviewed by the developers before the release:

	http://www.ubuntu.com/download/releasenotes/610

Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFR7TWtSaF0w5rBv8RAlcLAJ9MbxWVgIPf7UHK72wgLVMZu2k6iQCdGvWU
9cStg/VY0rfQCH3K1yRTanw=
=e1GZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----