[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: State of developers-reference



On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 06:28:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

> First, we need to decide whether we want to continue to maintain
> developers-reference. We could simply decide that it's deprecated, and
> use a set of wiki pages to document our procedures. I see some value to
> a (mostly) self-contained documentation, but, if it helps getting
> contributions from more people, we could simply move to wiki.d.o. (or to
> a ikiwiki instance). I'm not a big fan of wikis, so I wouldn't continue
> to "maintain" dev-ref, but I'm open to the idea.

I don't think wiki pages are a suitable replacement for the
developers-reference.

Over the years, one of my complaints about the devref has been the lack of a
formal and public review process for changes.  A wiki would move in
precisely the wrong direction; no one is going to subscribe to all the
wiki.debian.org changes to keep tabs on devref changes.

I think the devref discussions (incl. bug traffic) need to be moved onto
debian-policy.  We already have any number of bugs getting redirected from
policy to the devref, so it's not as though there would be a massive traffic
increase; and it would put the right set of eyeballs on the changes to
ensure the result actually reflects best practices.

> If we decide to continue to maintain developers-reference, we should all
> participate. I'm not asking everybody to become co-maintainers (some
> help is probably needed, and would be welcomed, but I don't think that
> the main problem is here).

I think moving the process "out into the open" would really help with this
problem.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: