usb-creator Draft

[Phil Bull]

Hi Matt,

On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 21:54 +0100, Matthew East wrote:
> Yes, it could be done like that, but it's an extra step for what seems
> to me to be no obvious win. If we start separate branches for such
> projects, it will be more effort to track them and to ensure that they
> are getting updated regularly. It will become more cumbersome to track
> bugs on the individual packages rather than just tracking ubuntu-docs
> bugs, and translations will be a nightmare (see below). This isn't
> working much for the other package that we are doing it for
> (gnome-user-docs), which isn't getting any serious attention from the
> team. I really do think it would be much simpler to ship the material
> in one branch, which has worked very well for the jockey docs.

OK, that seems reasonable. I still think that each app should have its
docs in its own package, since that's tidier from a packaging
perspective. However, tidiness is a poor reason to increase our
workload.

[...]
> The upshot of all of this is that preparing, exporting and importing
> translations for ubuntu-docs is a serious effort, and trying to do it
> for several packages is impractical. At the moment we are doing it for
> the various ubuntu-docs flavours and gnome-user-docs and it's a heavy
> burden. If we were to start doing this for jockey, usb-creator,
> gnome-app-install and other native Ubuntu applications (all of which
> use the regular langpacks for their software translations), it would
> become beyond our capacity.
> 
> Obviously that would change if we can get langpack support for XML
> translations, but I'm not counting the minutes for that to happen.

I'm completely clueless about translations. Why can't we get langpack
support for XML?

> > I think that this would make it easier for people to work with the doc
> > team, too. I'm concerned that other teams don't currently come to us
> > when they need docs doing.
> 
> I can see where you are coming from there but I think that's something
> we can address on another level, i.e. by promoting the image of the
> documentation team in the community and offering to help with
> documentation for new initiatives. Perhaps we can include this
> information as part of the developer documentation.

We should probably get in touch with ubuntu-devel and promote our
services. It's strange that developers seem to be reluctant to approach
us to ask for docs.

For the time being, through, maybe we should just take the initiative
and submit some patches. I've attached a brief overview of the software
in Ubuntu which we should probably be maintaining the documentation for.

I'd like to get it all fixed-up for this release, if anyone is
interested in helping out?

Thanks,

Phil

-- 
Phil Bull
https://launchpad.net/people/philbull
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ubuntu-doc-maint-status.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 26130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20090815/d113f077/attachment.pdf>