sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Donald Johnson <ltdonny AT gmail.com>
- To: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:17:47 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Kowis wrote:
> I have some questions: What is the document review process? What
> specifically should they look for? Is there any procedure to correct
> it? Is any procedure needed?
>
> A document review process might be more than we want to get into, as
> it implies a "release" for documentation, but that might be a good
> thing as well.
I think a document review process actually a good idea :) A good stable
first release of the docs would be a humongous step and committing Tome
to release things should also push the documentation's quality along.
The docs' release cycle should coincide with stable's release cycle such
as getting the docs sent to the packager prior to a stable-rc. From
there, more rigorous review of the stable-rc docs could commence before
stable is finally released. All hypothetical, of course, and there are
other organizational actions such as what we're doing now or a
structured rolling release of the docs.
That kind of tangented into a document release process.
But also, I will write up a document review document and post it to the
ML sometime, probably within the next week. If I don't get it out, hit
me over the head until I get it done :)
> It can help some, but it still doesn't allow us to prove that it
> works, nor does it allow us to continuously prove that stuff works
> after new commits or version upgrades. It's a one-off test, not
> worthless, but not useful to improve the quality of the distro over
> the long term.
Is it even possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a program will
work and compile from one computer to another? The only way I can think
at the moment is of is a dev or two that has a Prometheus install which
would use cabal across different machines with different compilation
architectures. Not entirely feasible :/
~Donald 'minozake' Johnson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Sender=Donald Johnson
iEYEARECAAYFAkrD5xYACgkQ/YxjcymZYJiNuwCgi9vl++h1c8SC87vb7MXZ6Sj4
ztUAoLcXUhYt/2LTpPTo/3xOtbRWJZbh
=u0AD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Donald Johnson, 10/01/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking, David Kowis, 10/01/2009
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
flux, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
flux, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
David Kowis, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Ladislav Hagara, 10/04/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 10/04/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking, flux, 10/04/2009
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking, Jaka Kranjc, 10/04/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Ladislav Hagara, 10/04/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
David Kowis, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
flux, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 10/01/2009
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spell quality checking,
flux, 10/01/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.