Documentation for the release

[Gervase Markham]

Shane H. W. Travis wrote:
> It is? Then how did *any* previous releases make it out the door? ;)

See below.

>>Is anyone allowed to dive in and fix docs, or do I need to coordinate
>>with someone?
> 
> 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 :-)

Gerv