Converting to Mallard?

[Kyle Nitzsche]

Hi Phil and all,

1) Does this approach (using upstream/Gnome help and adding 
Ubuntu-specific content to stub locations therein) support removing 
upstream content? It seems likely, or at least possible, that some 
upstream content might, for whatever reason, be inappropriate for Ubuntu 
(and/or its variants, of which there are many and of which there will in 
all likelihood, be many, many more).

2) Is the upstream/Gnome content really the best for Ubuntu? Even though 
it may simplify development and maintenance, the value to the Ubuntu 
user should perhaps be a higher priority. There should be a systematic 
analysis of Gnome help content with discussion to determine whether it 
is right for Ubuntu before serious considering it.

I've spoken before advocating development of a "true north" for Ubuntu 
Docs that expresses a set of high level priorities so that decisions can 
be well and publicly made. I would rank highly utility (to the user) and 
customizability (to support Ubuntu variants). Secondary (but still very 
important) items include, for me, work load. That is, a system that 
meets top priorities may well involve more work, but that work may be 
justified.

Cheers,
Kyle

On 04/13/2010 08:10 AM, Phil Bull wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been looking at how best to handle the proposed (but not
> necessarily accepted!) conversion to Mallard for the Ubuntu system docs.
> Our current plan is to make a "test conversion" of the existing docs to
> Mallard and figure out any issues before deciding on whether to switch
> over.
>
> The Mallard-format GNOME Desktop Help (DH) will provide "stub" locations
> where we can plug our own topics into it. This suggests that we should
> use the DH as our main help system (Yelp front page, etc.) and then add
> Ubuntu-specific material where appropriate. This is in contrast to the
> current setup, where we maintain our own, separate, Ubuntu help system
> and then link out to the GNOME desktop user guide.
>
> In my opinion, the "filling in stubs" approach will lead to a more
> coherent system for users, and we'll be left with much less overhead in
> maintaining links and managing the overall structure ourselves. We would
> lose some control over the presentation and structure of the content,
> though.
>
> If we do decide to switch to Mallard, it would be pointless to convert
> the current Ubuntu material without altering its structure to account
> for how it would be integrated into the DH. As such, if we do a "test
> conversion", we should do some "test restructuring" while we're at it.
> My plan is to get the Internet section of the GNOME Desktop Help written
> upstream over the next month or two. We could then work on converting
> and restructuring our Ubuntu-specific Internet material to conform with
> that part of the DH. If it works out, we switch everything to Mallard.
> If it doesn't, we can stay put or suggest improvements to Mallard.
>
> In order to do this "test conversion" sensibly, we should decide on what
> should be provided by the DH and what should be provided by our
> distro-specific modifications. For example, should we provide the
> material on how to connect to a wireless network in Network Manager (as
> we currently do), or should that be GNOME's responsibility? Where do we
> draw the line between distro-specific and upstream?
>
> My thoughts are that we should handle hardware-specific stuff (like
> wireless troubleshooting), package management and specific Ubuntu
> modifications to vanilla GNOME. That would be all.
>
> What do people think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil
>
>