Fwd: Server Guide HTML

Matthew East mdke at ubuntu.com
Wed Aug 18 18:31:05 UTC 2010

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Adam Sommer <asommer70 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Scott,
>> I would particularly like it if this meant we could do more to fix docs in
>> current releases.  Both of the docs bugs I recently files should be fixed
>> for
>> Lucid as well as Maverick.
> I think past releases will have to be updated using the SRU process.  I know
> the Doc Team is usually pretty/very slow to issue updates, but since the
> package was in those releases, I think the past process will apply.
> Anyone on the Doc Team have input about that issue?

The issue we have here is that the bzr branch in which the serverguide
is stored is essentially an Ubuntu source package - i.e. the source
package for ubuntu-docs. Changing that bzr branch means that any
upload we do to an existing Ubuntu release of the package will have
those changes in it, even if that document is not something that
appears in a binary package.

That in turn means that when a document is modified in our bzr branch,
we have to be mindful of the SRU process. We also need to bear in mind
that where a change is made to the serverguide, even if that change
won't appear in a package and will just be published to a website,
translators who may well be publishing translated versions are kept
informed so that they can also update their translated versions.

There are various solutions that come to mind.

1. We can do a better job of scheduling regular SRU uploads, and that
might allay Scott's concerns, but because of the nature of string
changes and the need to allow time for translators, I don't think we
can necessarily guarantee that the fixes will be fast to appear.

2. We could take the serverguide out of the ubuntu-docs bzr branch /
source package, and put it in its own bzr branch which wouldn't be a
source package and which wouldn't have the same constraints. That
would raise some process issues about how the docteam would manage the
separate branch and translations of the guide, which is a conversation
I'm happy to have, but equally would be quite a big change so we
should discuss it carefully. Possible disadvantages might include
having to manage different processes for different documents; and
potential divergence of common files used (such as those in the "libs"

3. We could keep the serverguide in the ubuntu-docs bzr branch /
source package but ask anyone reviewing SRU uploads to ignore any
changes to that document on the basis that it doesn't appear in any
binary packages anyway. Again we would need to establish a process for
information translators about any changes to the document anyway.

I'm not a bzr or packaging expert so I'd be very interested in any
other suggestions or opinions.

Matthew East
gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF

More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list