Installation usability testing

[Gervase Markham]

On 06/04/09 11:07, Frédéric Buclin wrote:
> We still need to review it. If you write it wrong, the doc won't
> compile, Tinderbox will turn red,

The difficulty of fixing the documentation is tied to our method of 
maintaining it. There's a reason Wikipedia is not maintained as a series 
of compilable XML documents in a CVS repository.

But even so, even if we didn't start keeping them in a wiki, review is 
not necessary to make sure a doc compiles. A rule that "the docs must 
compile and all the tests run" would still make updates far more 
friction-free than the current system.

> Wiki is
> not tied to a single release (which has advantages and disavantages,
> because you may talk about something which is not available in your
> specific version) and can be updated at any time.

I would anticipate that when we shipped a release, we could export the 
current version of the wiki to a static version. If there were 
post-release tweaks to make, we could edit the HTML of that static 
version directly, but this would be a rare thing.

>> Reading the install documentation, it hasn't changed much since I last
>> overhauled it several years ago. There are several bits which are just
>> plain wrong, and have been for years.
>
> So feel free to file a bug and attach a patch. :)

OK, but what about my major point? Loads of people have installed 
Bugzilla over the past 18 months, and not one of them has done this. Why 
not? My suggestion is because fixing the docs is far too complicated, 
but you may have a different suggestion.

Gerv
_______________________________________________
dev-apps-bugzilla mailing list
dev-apps-bugzilla at lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-apps-bugzilla