3:26 p.m.
How does this outline look?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KarstenWade/Drafts/OneSummary
... in trying to be inclusive for all the parts of the Project.
--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
9:12 p.m.
Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
How does this outline look?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KarstenWade/Drafts/OneSummary
... in trying to be inclusive for all the parts of the Project.
Apologies for cross-posting but I'd like to try to tie together some
ideas that have been floating around the fab and docs lists.
Is it feasible to start looking at the Release Notes / Release Summary
and some issues with timely production of those, mentioned in FDSCo
meeting[2] today, through the spectacles of Mr Spaleta's post [1] and
his rainbow diagram[3]?
There seems to be a good cross-section of FP subprojects involved in a
production of release notes and summaries, all of which could benefit
from the better co-ordination of the effort:
* Maintainers/Packagers
* Testers/Bug Triagers
* Beats and Docs writers / Translators
* Artists
* Marketing
Being inventive (not!), I thought something like RelNotes SIG, acting as
an umbrella for all of the * above might achieve this better co-ordination.
Immediate and a very visible benefit would be accurate Release Notes
produced on time throughout the dev-cycle (and Rahul and others relieved
of beyond-human effort during the last 48 hrs before the mirrors open
every 6-7 months).
The other, less visible benefit, is the possibility (there was a bit of
a talk about it within docs team, too) to use this road to attract new
contributors and get them started on smaller, less intimidating pieces
of the project.
Is there anything fundamentally wrong with this?
Cheers, Vladimir
---------------------
[1]
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-January/msg002...
[2]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/SteeringCommittee/Meetings/Minu...
[3]
http://fedorapeople.org/~jspaleta/role-based-sigs/sig-teams.png
9:39 a.m.
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 13:26 -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
How does this outline look?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KarstenWade/Drafts/OneSummary
... in trying to be inclusive for all the parts of the Project.
I quite like the look of it but have a couple of questions:
How does this fulfil the needs of the release notes - i.e. the more
technical content?
Is there any point maintaining the distinction between the Release Notes
and the #/Summary?
Hmm that's all I can think for now :) I especially like the idea of
targeting Desktop/Server etc...
Jon
--
fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
3:14 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:39 +0000, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 13:26 -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade
wrote:
> How does this outline look?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KarstenWade/Drafts/OneSummary
>
> ... in trying to be inclusive for all the parts of the Project.
I quite like the look of it but have a couple of questions:
How does this fulfil the needs of the release notes - i.e. the more
technical content?
Shucks, this is my fault. We have two things with the word "one" in
their name, both under discussion:
* One-sheet release notes for alpha, beta releases
* OneSummary that provides a single source of summary for a release to
distribute into final release notes, press kits, etc.
I propose renaming OneSummary (it's the late comer). How about
SingleSummary? SingleOverview?
Is there any point maintaining the distinction between the Release
Notes
and the #/Summary?
It is just that parts of a single-source summary are useful in the
release notes; maybe even all of it.
Hmm that's all I can think for now :) I especially like the idea
of
targeting Desktop/Server etc...
So, with the new understanding, how does this proposal look for a
single-sourced summary?
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
3:51 p.m.
So, with the new understanding, how does this proposal look for a
single-sourced summary?
I would say it looks good, and perhaps something like what me and
Rahul have worked on today as a practical example (although this has
come under the title Release Notes, it's clearly lacking the technical
content you would ascribe to the Release Notes, so is more like the
single-sourced summary):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/Alpha/ReleaseNotes
Maybe we can build on this and refine it for the Beta release, and
even incorporate the more technical info?
Jon
3:57 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 21:51 +0000, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> So, with the new understanding, how does this proposal look for
a
> single-sourced summary?
I would say it looks good, and perhaps something like what me and
Rahul have worked on today as a practical example (although this has
come under the title Release Notes, it's clearly lacking the technical
content you would ascribe to the Release Notes, so is more like the
single-sourced summary):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/Alpha/ReleaseNotes
Maybe we can build on this and refine it for the Beta release, and
even incorporate the more technical info?
Jon
Quick note I changed the URL from Fedora 8 to Fedora 9 alpha.
Cheers,
Marc
3:59 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 21:51 +0000, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> So, with the new understanding, how does this proposal look for
a
> single-sourced summary?
I would say it looks good, and perhaps something like what me and
Rahul have worked on today as a practical example (although this has
come under the title Release Notes, it's clearly lacking the technical
content you would ascribe to the Release Notes, so is more like the
single-sourced summary):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/Alpha/ReleaseNotes
Maybe we can build on this and refine it for the Beta release, and
even incorporate the more technical info?
Jon
Side note KDE-Sig (Should it have a link to the SIG page)
Should we link to the feature pages for more info?
Cheers,
Marc
4:06 p.m.
Side note KDE-Sig (Should it have a link to the SIG page)
Should we link to the feature pages for more info?
I'd like to figure out a consistent way to link to both the feature
page and the upstream page where relevant but I've used to do it! If
you've got any thoughts jump right in!
Jon
5924
days inactive
5930
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jonathan Roberts -
Karsten Wade -
Marc Wiriadisastra -
Vladimir Kosovac