In a message of Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:41:50 +1000, Nick Coghlan writes:
Ian Bicking wrote:
Anyway, another even more expedient option would be setting up a separate bug tracker (something simpler to submit to than SF) and putting a link on the bottom of every page, maybe like: http://trac.python.org/trac/newticket?summary=re:+/path/to/doc&componen
-- heck, we all know SF bug tracking sucks, this is a good chance to experiment with a different tracker, and documentation has softer requirements other parts of Python.
While I quite like this idea, would it make it more difficult when the bu g tracking for the main source code is eventually migrated off SF? And what
would happen to existing documentation bug reports/patches on the SF trac kers?
Is it possible to do something similar for the online version of the curr ent docs, simply pointing them at the SF tracker? (I know this doesn't help p eople without an SF account. . .)
Not if the problem is that documentation changes are not 'patches' and 'bugs' and the sourceforge bug tracker, which isn't even particularly good at tracking bugs is particularly ill-suited for the collaborative sharing of documents.