Docs QA

Travis Whitlock btw9979 at
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> wrote:

> 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.
> Thoughts?
> - --Eric
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJM2sPfAAoJEDbiLlqcYamxN9QQAI1Y1MJMfQ58j0p2uitZea8g
> 58jTZ+iJ+9oQAs45SlNpvcPO+OIEMFB8f1DgIjTKdSnCb9OCqNCDiyuBAm+oZTZY
> nhyRZXbY1fSloH6VTvxphK8mZ9Bnr5q0eq357ShbwAtgGuiU4nLrcxqOo7aA13iX
> AObbaHOSz09cgcbDqCXWF5ImEh0HEpQy5yswkgm2Hk7gq+WMQuLYOOkI3R/TqaJd
> F9zsAUcFqqvDdBZ14cViv1DySWT9+dKY7wQfFDqjgC0pJiGiOlqX+MdNaL/wGF2E
> oVRuDvg8OWxK8aze+7s1tMa7fyGvZS2r4HN/v2NfXuzhTtb0j01BzkqQHrQ+difa
> 37AHJk/C+qBcuh4jgdpfI16cxHRcb4EzxZLWOhSs0FanwTzSqU2GYojKm5mP8FVz
> dXO8L+R54BpjVivurWTDG5K9+YnTiKZAgvWc1TahXlvg1JGuV96/o61WUC0ZaMJ5
> CbLM95bEam9alluGcApFQRjUu0aOTCmz307AEfHunb6JXvQV8W7r1AtoXBuokPh1
> mJ0JoIt5WNp+sgMtGaLBRah5rAZQoVWwgzncSckh8SOpJQAq5o+5V8EiqUTMG0fs
> TFbgJFUZWBM2N3xBI6xSHJPHcX8h3VHZrw/21J6shNotO8/bn5r6uFG8clEBAiyK
> XA2Ft7I9Eq7taka1ZiCY
> =K2rO
> --
> docs mailing list
> docs at
> To unsubscribe:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the docs mailing list