btw9979 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 10 20:40:41 UTC 2010
I would suggest attempting to have an independent reviewer. Meaning a
member of the docs team that ideally has not worked on the section they are
reviewing. Familiarity with a document is usually the best way to overlook
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Eric "Sparks" Christensen <
sparks at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> An important part of creating documentation is the QA (or making sure
> what we write is not only correct but won't kill someone's computer).
> We haven't been doing formal QA on our documentation before releasing
> our guides. I'm assuming that we check our "code" before a release but
> mistakes happen and that's why I'd like to hear people's thoughts on
> implementing a Docs QA procedure.
> One thought is to get the Fedora QA Team to help us with this. I spoke
> with jlaska this morning and he has added this to his wish list. I'm
> open to other suggestions, though.
> - --Eric
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> docs mailing list
> docs at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the docs