Zapping the old FAQ

Jeffrey A Law
Tue Feb 15 13:10:00 GMT 2000

  In message < >
you write:
  > [ 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!
Yup.  Basically all we have to do is request from the FOM server a copy of
the FAQ as a flat file like this:

ie, start at the first file (toplevel) and recurse.


  > >>  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?
That's going to happen from time to time.  We just have to weed it out.

It doesn't appear that other projects which use FOM (or similar packages)
spend much time on this kind of stuff.

  > 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!)
Precisely.  If someone notices bogons, we kill them.

  > >> 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.
Agreed.  Actually what you're describing is a migration path -- over time
a certain amount of stuff in FOM should migrate into the install, user or
developer guides.

  > 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 we want to restrict access to specific items, that's easily done :-)

  > 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.
I think this is pretty straightforward too.  We just have mirrors pick up
the cgi script, meta & cache subdirs.  Probably the only thing we'd need to
do is have different access permissions on the mirrors (ie, readonly :-)

More information about the Gcc mailing list