Documentation for the release
gerv at mozilla.org
Thu Jan 13 22:29:14 UTC 2005
Shane H. W. Travis wrote:
> It is? Then how did *any* previous releases make it out the door? ;)
>>Is anyone allowed to dive in and fix docs, or do I need to coordinate
> Jake, Dave, Vlad and I had a discussion about this, and it resulted in the
> following consensus;
> 1) Anyone can make a patch for a docs bug, same as for a regular bug.
> 2) Someone else on the docs team has to give it an r+ before it can be
> checked in. It should be correct in three ways before it gets
> that r+; grammatically, informationally, and SGML-wise.
> 3) Approval is unnecessary. r+ == a+ so it can be checked in after one
> positive review.
Ah. Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, the reason the 2.16 docs
were reasonable was that I sat down one weekend and spent 12 hours
straight hacking on them. Doing that within any sort of review procedure
just isn't practical.
However, in that case, I had the field to myself. If there are other
people doing docs things, that would make it very hard to do.
I could make time for such a hackathon this weekend, if others can get
their patches in before then and stay out of the way ;-). You can then
review the result in its entirety, by reading it, rather than as
patches. Does that sound do-able?
> If you (Gerv) want to help by *writing* docs... please hit the ones in the
> Bugzilla Documentation Component... especially the ones you know the answers
> to -- 274509, 275701, anything you originated, and probably anything to do
> with LDAP.
I know nothing about LDAP :-)
More information about the developers