One set of documentation needs to go

[Elizabeth Krumbach Joseph]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Peter Matulis
<peter.matulis at canonical.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2013 12:20 AM, Elizabeth Krumbach Joseph wrote:
>> 2. Be easier to contribute to. Documentation is never easy and you do
>> need to learn formatting and such, but they have created a clear on
>> ramp for contributors of various types and our Desktop documentation
>> team can learn a lot from them. Indeed - the idea for having a Google
>> Spreadsheet for tracking reviews this cycle came directly from them.
>
> I looked at ubuntu-manual.org and I was surprised to learn that the
> project uses pretty much the same workflow/toolset as the traditional
> Ubuntu docs (Launchpad, SSH, bzr, make).  I now realize that its
> differences are really Desktop-centric (display of
> graphics/screenshots).  The general impression of the project site is
> also more warm and welcoming than the traditional stuff.

The core difference is the format they are actually written in. Manual
uses Latex and Ubuntu Desktop docs use Mallard because historically
they pulled in a lot of Gnome docs, which are in Mallard. I'm not sure
how true this is anymore so it would be great to talk about that.

> To whom it concerns: Can we agree that this will remain primarily a
> Desktop guide?
>
>> I do agree that there is an unfortunate division of effort right now
>> for very similar things. Now that we've grown interest back up in the
>> doc team I look forward to pursuing collaboration opportunities.
>> Having Kevin here working on both projects is a fantastic start.
>
> What is stopping us from using the Manual solely for Desktop documentation?

This is an important discussion to have, thanks for bringing it up. I
think it deserves its own thread that includes the major stakeholders
from both Desktop doc and Manual. Perhaps a meeting during UDS[0] as
well.

[0] http://uds.ubuntu.com/

-- 
Elizabeth Krumbach Joseph || Lyz || pleia2
http://www.princessleia.com