Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 20:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 19:31 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: | > | > I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where | > | > to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel | > | > universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies. | > | | > | Have you not yet discovered that this is because people find the | > | documentation we have to be hard to work with, and submitting patches to | > | write in texinfo and whatnot to be a pain in the ass? | > | > | > I disagree with the notion that because our current documentation is | > imperfect, we shall move the corrected one to the Wiki page. I think | > we've gotten too far in putting valuables bits of GCC outside our main | > documentation repository. | | This happens because | 1. People don't want to write texinfo, and continually submit patches to | update the docs little by little (remember, people work on docs the same | way they do on code. Most of the time, what they have written is not | complete yet. Which is fine for the wiki, but not for our cvs docs, it | seems), whereas this is trivial with the wiki | 2. The docs people seem to want to write or use don't fit anywhere in | our current scheme.
Then, let's extend that scheme (no, I exclude Wiki :-)) -- Gaby
