CVS Mirror

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 07:46, redwire at therockmere.com wrote:
> The question was asked about 2 weeks ago about hosting the CVS. I got some
> specs, but I wanted to follow up.
> 
> I am migrating to a static IP 1.5/286 with Speakeasy in the next month. 
> While I don't want to drag my connex down, I'd be interested in hosting a
> CVS mirror. In real terms, how much drag will I see if I host a CVS or
> mirror CVS?
> 
> I guess I don't quite understand why the CVS is LOCKED and why the Fedora
> Main Page hasn't been updated to release\hyperlink to at least some
> documentation.
> 
> FC1 and FC2 have been in production since APRIL, it seems important to ME
> at least that there be some sort of documentation made avail. Also, I
> think that releasing some documentation would help alleviate some of the
> errant posting of questions to the fedora-docs mailing list.
> 
> The other alt. is to consider a FC docs based website, on my server, and
> ask for any interested doc mailing list participants to send their docs to
> me and I'll post them.
> 
> Thoughts and clarification of usage appreicated

My $0.02: CVS is still locked because we don't yet have a workable
protocol for prioritizing, assigning, accepting, editing, QA/QC'ing, and
automatically Web-fielding documents. I think (hope?) Red Hat people are
working on the infrastructure part of that. We are here to talk about
those protocols, and not to just grow a plethora of third-party
repositories for docs.

There's no reason why anyone on their own (or in a group) can't make a
Web site full of helpful Fedora documents. I would hope that the best of
those would make it into the official repository, just like software.
However, there are plenty of these already, not least among them
FedoraNews.org, just for one example. Multiplying these document
repositories doesn't fix the problem. What would really help would be
using this list to nail down the process.

Having a reliable process makes the product better. There's a big
difference in quality between, say, the official Red Hat Linux
documentation of yore and the average "article" on any of a number of
Fedora doc sites. Bad grammar and spelling, colloquial language or
jargon that's difficult for foreign readers, failure to cover other than
limited usage cases... the list goes on. Personally, I want the official
site to represent exceptional achievement in documentation and not just
an "anything-goes" inclusivity. Just as Linux was built on a
technocracy, the Docs Project should probably be built on a, erm...
"literocracy?" (Sorry, I have to rush to a meeting, so I don't have time
to come up with the right term here. I guess I just ceded my place at
the table.) :-)

If you REALLY want to help the project as a whole, give us your thoughts
on how we can accomplish my very first sentence in this reply. That's
how we'll make progress. The idea is not to do it fast and then fix it
through eighty-five revisions... we should do it right the first time
through careful planning and analysis of alternatives, even if it's
frustrating to figure out that right way.

Having said that, and although I am no one other than JAFE (just another
flippin' editor), I for one recognize your generosity and say thanks.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE