Paul A. Rubin wrote: > Can we define a criterion for "outdated"? And should attempt to fix it > or delete it? For instance, LyX/LyXOnUbuntu starts with a comment about > LyX 1.5.3 on Ubuntu Hardy. Leave it for the one or two people who > steadfastly refuse to update a working system, or get rid of it?
I would at least update ambiguous information to the most recent (stable) version. For instance, I found some occurrences where menu positions were described following the old (classic) UI, and then someone added a note: "In LyX 1.6, this dialog is at ...". Instead of this, I'd just go with the most recent version. There was really very outdated information in the FAQ (concerning xforms or Qt3, for instance). LyX 1.5 is probably a corner case. Some information might still be needed for some people. But it can probably be moved to a less prominent place, if it is found at the beginning of a page. > (I > would vote for the latter, but I'm not entirely comfortable about > deleting someone else's entries. If I find something I myself posted > that is obsolete, I'll cheerfully recycle the bytes.) The wiki is a collaborative tool. If we hesitate to correct, edit and probably also remove other peoples entires, the wiki ends up as an ecclectic piece of text which helps nobody. My "favorite" page is this: http://wiki.lyx.org/FAQ/MultipleAuthors This looks like a chat log. I mean, for someone looking for help, this site is just irritating. > Something like Tips/MathMacros needs to be updated (since we now have > menu and toolbar control over macros), but I would think the existing > content could be kept after verifying that it still works, even if it is > arguably not the most efficient approach anymore. Maybe. However, we should try to clean this up where possible. At least as far as the FAQ is concerned, we should really try to get the thing usable. I added some notes on how I think the FAQ should look like: http://wiki.lyx.org/FAQ/FAQFAQ > /Paul (who will fiddle with both those pages when time permits) Jürgen
