Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 22:50 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created
> > a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they
> > should find useful*.
> 
> I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am not responsible for 
> gcc/doc/*.texi as such. 

Of course.

>  The main reason I'm listed as doc co-maintainer 
> is so that I can help, as far as I can in terms of what I know, to get 
> changes approved/applied and maintain install.texi and contrib.texi.

Yup.

> 
> There are, it seems, at least two different issues here: one is that our 
> manuals seem not to be satisfactory, especially for new developers. And 
> one is the documentation of our policies, procedures, timelines, etc. on 
> the web pages.

Yup.

> 
> > In reality, you should be taking the docs people found useful, like on
> > the wiki, and moving them into our developer facing documentation, etc,
> 
> As far as reviewing/applying/approving patches for wwwdocs is concerned, 
> and implementing suggestions sent to the GCC lists, I'm committed to do 
> that, and do so within one "online day" if possible in any way.

I understand, and you've been great about approving what is sent.
I don't mean to disrepect that in any way.

> 
> However, I just don't have the bandwidth to dig through Wiki and port 
> things over, and it's not exactly an efficient nor motivating modus 
> operandi either.
I would submit them from the wiki if i felt people found more use for it
in wwwdocs.
Otherwise, why not just link from the approriate page to it in the wiki?

> Really, it depends on what "this stuff" is.  Duplicating official 
> information from the regular web pages simply does not seem very
> fruitful (and risks inconsistencies), and taking a wwwdocs patch
> and putting it into the Wiki as Michael did as opposed to providing
> feeback just seems counter productive.

See Andrew's message.