Rob Hirschfeld (rob_hirschf...@dell.com) wrote: > > Why? We already have > > https://github.com/crowbar/crowbar/wiki/Videos > > https://github.com/crowbar/crowbar/wiki/Introductory-Videos > > https://github.com/crowbar/crowbar/wiki/Developer-Videos (strangely empty) > > and IMHO the wiki is a much more suitable place for videos, because they're > > not strongly coupled to a particular revision of code. If a list of videos > > goes in the repo, then git diff between branches will show differences in > > the list of videos, which doesn't make any sense to me. Sorry to be picky, > > but proliferation of semi-duplicated documentation seems to be a common > > problem with Crowbar in general, so it'd be great to avoid making it worse. > > Feel free to correct me if I missed something. > > Adam, that's a good point. Here's my dilemma -> the notes from those videos > are documentation that's persisted. I think that should be in the docs, not > on the wiki. The videos are helpful to backstop the docs but age. We need > to have a system that encourages the text to be written and I don't see that > from the wiki pages.
Totally agree - if the notes from the videos evolve into documentation that is standalone and does not refer to the videos from which they came, then the repo is the correct home for it. I was just objecting to the idea of a list of links to soon-to-be-outdated videos being checked into the repo. If the above "evolution" happens in a single step, then the notes can be checked directly into the repo as 1st class docs. But another valid workflow pattern is to make rough notes on the video in the wiki, then once they are polished and de-coupled from the original video they can be moved to the repo. Sounds like we are probably on the same page but I just misunderstood your intention. _______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
