{Desktop 12.10 Topic] Holistic approach to Ubuntu documentation

[Kate Stewart]

Hi, 

While we're doing this,  am wondering if we can group 
any release specific pages we find, under
wiki.ubuntu.com/<ReleaseName> ?
For example:   any Maverick pages would be grouped under 
1010MaverickMeerkatEOL  or something similar.  

Since Oneiric, we've been keeping all the release pages under
wiki.ubuntu.com/OneiricOcelot/ for instance,  so, in future we'd just
change OneiricOcelot to 1110OneiricOcelotEOL, and the status would be
clear without much more additional work.  

If we add the release prefixing number to EOL releases it might help
avoid confusion when we head towards name space collision with Warty in
a few more years (and help with sorts, etc.)

For pages that don't align with a specific release,  using the EOL
suffix seems like a good approach. 

Kate


On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 12:47 +0530, Phill Whiteside wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> That was the crux of my suggesting to move such stuff to
> <wiki_page_name>EOL ? The information that applies to how to do
> something in, say, 8.04 may well still be valid for 12.04. Where it is
> not, then it should be moved out of 'current' to the ~EOL page.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Phill.
> 
> On 20 April 2012 05:44, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
> <joerlend.schinstad at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>         Den 19. april 2012 15:58, skrev Phill Whiteside:
>         > warrants a bit of discussion. I'm dead against deleting
>         stuff, for
>         > example - some one may actually still be running 8.10, and
>         see no
>         > reason to change. We should not 'force' them to change
>         because we have
>         > deleted the information resource.
>         
>         
>         My point is that a page with information about an unsupported
>         version
>         should be Obviously Invalid. If you've chosen to use an
>         unsupported
>         version, then you have to live with that. Users who choose to
>         use
>         supported versions should be prioritized – LTS users at the
>         top. Exactly
>         how this should be done, is a different issue. Right now, old,
>         outdated
>         information looks identical to updated, valid information.
>         That is a
>         problem.
>         
>         Instant recognition of information that's confirmed and
>         reliable,
>         instant recognition of information that is wrong, and instant
>         recognition of information that must be treated with some
>         caution. This
>         creates confidence. You know what you're dealing with and what
>         to expect.
>         
>         At no point should you have any reason to be suspicious,
>         because that
>         has a dramatic effect on your ability to learn. That's the
>         main point.
>         
>         Jo-Erlend Schinstad
>         
>         --
>         ubuntu-doc mailing list
>         ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
>         https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
>         
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phillw