Zapping the old FAQ

Gerald Pfeifer
Sun Feb 13 09:47:00 GMT 2000

[ moved from gcc-patches to gcc ]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>>  o We currently ship (and probably want to continue to do so) our FAQ
>>    with releases. This will become harder with the F-O-M.
> Not in any significant way.

This is good to hear!

>>  o For our web pages we have a kind of peer review system, which often
>>    leads to suggestions and enhancements (often by means of private mail
>>    to me, for example).
> Yes, but I'm not sure it is desirable/appropriate for an FAQ.  The whole
> point behind FOM is to make "maintaining" an FAQ for the maintainer take
> as little time/effort as possible.

Of course. ;-)  But how do we prevent incorrect information appearing in
our FAQ?

More precisely I am not worried about incorrect information appearing in
the FAQ, but remaining there. That is, I don't care much if we have some
incorrect information there for a few days, as long as it gets detected
and corrected in the long term. (This may not be a real issue, however,
once the F-O-M gets used more heavily!)

>> We can easily discuss changes to the FAQ on the mailing list and see
>> notifications via gcc-cvs-wwwdocs and have everything archived in list
>> archives. Is there some way we can keep that?
> I would back up one step and ask why we want to keep that.

Two issues: We want to avoid additions to the FAQ that should actually
go directly in our install/user documentation or at least be notified
of such additions so that we can integrate them ourselves.

Second, we currently have some "official" information in the FAQ, like
"What is the relationship between GCC and Cygnus". Do we really want
stuff like that to be world writable?

If the general opinion here is that these issues are not really that
important, just let's tackle on how folks can easily mirror our web
site including F-O-M (preferrably using CVS) and remove the old FAQ
rather sooner than later.

Gerald "Jerry"

More information about the Gcc mailing list