[Doc-SIG] that library reference, again

[Ian Bicking]

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>Perhaps; I haven't played with the SF interface at all, so I don't know
>>if you can prefill fields.  But it's still a pain, since logging into SF
>>isn't seemless (since you don't get redirected back to where you started
>>from).  Also, I don't know if the requirements for documentation match
>>the code generally.  Being able to follow up on documentation bugs isn't
>>as important, so if you don't always collect the submitters email
>>address it's not that big a deal.  Doc maintainers may be willing to
>>filter through a bit more spam if it means that they get more
>>submissions, and so forth.  The review process probably isn't as
>>important.  So I think it could be argued that code and documentation
>>shouldn't even be on the same tracker.
> 
> 
> fwiw, I'm not convinced that we need a tracker at all.  A mailing list
> and a way to link to documentation constructs (with links that can
> be read and written and followed by humans, and identified by com-
> puters) might be good enough.

I think there needs to be at least some workflow, some way to indicate 
what comments have been acted upon and which ones have not.  How else 
can multiple people maintain the documentation?  There's no 
collaborative way to track the status of email messages.  Anyway, 
setting up a Trac instance and dumping comments into that (from whatever 
source) isn't particularly hard.


-- 
Ian Bicking  /  ianb at colorstudy.com  /  http://blog.ianbicking.org