O/H Karsten Wade έγραψε:
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 17:17 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> I like the idea of more contributions to the glossary. It's a worthy
> goal. I just wish that, at the same time as we get more contributions,
> we were also encouraging people to submit the changes in a more
> automatically trackable way. That way is Bugzilla. (I'm reminded that
> random people can't contribute to our wiki -- they have to go through a
> series of steps (you've done them, of course) including the CLA.)
>
> Wiki notifications are a fine way for anyone currently using the wiki to
> pick up "what needs to be done." But what about John Newuser, who just
> joined? He starts at square one, and even if he has CVS and DocBook
> skills, and is well-informed enough to turn on all his notifications
> immediately, he will have no idea what entries need to be moved. He
> can't get backdated notifications.
>
> Bugzilla is a queue of problems that any motivated contributor can
> consult for a "to-do" list. John Newuser can look at the list, pick a
> problem, and get down to business. Bug and task tracking tools are the
> ideal way to capture this work, and produce other useful information
> like how long it's taking to get them closed or handled. The wiki
> satisfies none of those needs, unfortunately.
>
> Again, I'm not blasting use of the wiki -- but it's very clear to me
> that it's not a sustainable and valuable tool in the way that SCM and
> Bugzilla clearly are. It's merely good for collecting raw material
> quickly.
I've been watching release notes in particular be produced for the last
three+ years, internally for RHEL, then externally in Fedora. To be
honest, bugzilla was always a bit of a barrier that even seasoned
developers wouldn't overcome unless the error was egregious or the new
content valuable. I'd see poor Ed begging for input time after time,
and only a dozen developers actually put anything in the bug report.
This is in stark contrast to what we've experienced with the Wiki. At
least two to three times the number of developers have helped with
content and reviews, and it's easier for people to dig their hands in
and get stuff done.
What I'm thinking is that bugzilla can work for all levels, but there is
a granularity level below which input decreases. For example, more
reports are filed for technical errors, while translation and
grammar/spelling errors get few bug reports.
Templates try to fix this, but they fail as you already point out.
Maybe we could have (through Plone) some simple webpage front-ends for bug
reports, which use XML-RPC to communicate with bugzilla? For example, one
webpage titled "Leave a comment" could open special ready-made bug reports for
comments on the Docs -- even anonymously (using a special bugzilla user). Of
course this will apply only bug reports on a spacial component (eg
"comment-rfe").
Of course this might overwhelm us with bug reports that need closing and stuff.
But there are 100 times more "I just want to leave a comment guys" than "I
am
willing/able to create a Fedora account or complete a template bugzilla report".
[...]
Bottom line is this: if the only way to get a change in e.g. Fedora
Glossary is to file a bug report, we will receive 1/10th to 1/100th the
number of fixes and entries than if we put it in the Wiki for editing.
We have to balance the challenges of Wiki -> XML with the increased
contributions.
+1. Or jump quickly to a new technology, like the ticketing the Infrastructure
folks did. Which isn't likely to happen because of maintenance reasons.
-d
--
Dimitris Glezos
Jabber ID: glezos(a)jabber.org, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B
http://dimitris.glezos.com/
"He who gives up functionality for ease of use
loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous)
--