On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 22:50 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created > > a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they > > should find useful*. > > I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am not responsible for > gcc/doc/*.texi as such.
Of course. > The main reason I'm listed as doc co-maintainer > is so that I can help, as far as I can in terms of what I know, to get > changes approved/applied and maintain install.texi and contrib.texi. Yup. > > There are, it seems, at least two different issues here: one is that our > manuals seem not to be satisfactory, especially for new developers. And > one is the documentation of our policies, procedures, timelines, etc. on > the web pages. Yup. > > > In reality, you should be taking the docs people found useful, like on > > the wiki, and moving them into our developer facing documentation, etc, > > As far as reviewing/applying/approving patches for wwwdocs is concerned, > and implementing suggestions sent to the GCC lists, I'm committed to do > that, and do so within one "online day" if possible in any way. I understand, and you've been great about approving what is sent. I don't mean to disrepect that in any way. > > However, I just don't have the bandwidth to dig through Wiki and port > things over, and it's not exactly an efficient nor motivating modus > operandi either. I would submit them from the wiki if i felt people found more use for it in wwwdocs. Otherwise, why not just link from the approriate page to it in the wiki? > Really, it depends on what "this stuff" is. Duplicating official > information from the regular web pages simply does not seem very > fruitful (and risks inconsistencies), and taking a wwwdocs patch > and putting it into the Wiki as Michael did as opposed to providing > feeback just seems counter productive. See Andrew's message.
