Converting to Mallard?

[Kyle Nitzsche]

On 04/14/2010 09:24 PM, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 19:49 -0400, Kyle Nitzsche wrote:
>    
>> 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'm not going to address what's best for Ubuntu, its users,
> or its contributors. But I do want to point out that Phil
> is the primary person driving the new Mallard-based Gnome
> help right now. It's not a matter of taking some black box
> from some nebulous "other" provider. Distro people can, do,
> and absolutely should shape upstream software.
>    
I support Phil, you and the community. The amount of work you all do is 
truly exceptional.

I just want to see a more complete analysis of the options. If the 
approach doesn't allow for customization, then that's an issue for me.

I still wonder about some previous issues I've raised respecting Mallard:
  * what control over user submitted topics (might the user confuse them 
with official docs and can the user revert to official docs?)
  * translation regressions and new work (all of which may be worth it)
  * control of the order of topics

>    
>> 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.
>>      
> My top priority is always to help users as best as possible.
> That should be the top priority of everybody working on user
> assistance. But when working with volunteer communities, you
> have to balance that with what people can reasonably provide
> without getting burned out.
>
>    
That is a critical point, no doubt, raised before and I second it. But 
all things flow from the big design. So lets have a nice discussion 
about that (what I call "true north" (a borrowed term)).
> --
> Shaun
>
>
>
>