[Catalyst-dev] Documentation

[Jesse Sheidlower]

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 06:53:54PM +0100, Matt S Trout wrote:
> Jesse Sheidlower wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 06:01:48PM +0100, Matt S Trout wrote:
> >> Docs branch: jester, ghenry?, castaway?, hkclark?
> >>
> >> There's a long-overdue doc/tutorial rework/etc. that's been bubbling 
> >> through the planning stages on IRC for a while. I reckon we should 
> >> probably start a docs branch for it so the people with the "explaining 
> >> shit in plain english" chops have somewhere to play without people like 
> >> me getting in the way. If you lot are in favour of it, kick me to set it 
> >> up and make sure the svn permissions are right.
> > 
> > Thanks for getting this discussion started.
> 
> Thanks for changing the subject on the reply as requested :P

Hey, I said I was heading out; I was in a rush.

> > I'm heading out now but I'll send some comments to the list (I
> > know this is going to the list to) about what I'd like to see
> > happen to the docs in the near future, and what work we're
> > doing right now esp. on the Tutorial. However, I don't think
> > that we need a separate branch for the docs; they can stay in
> > trunk, and us plain-English types will just stay on top of
> > whatever you guys do to make sure it's right :-)
> 
> I disagree. The reworking stuff should go in a branch that gets merged 
> back to trunk regularly, so its easy to see specifically the doc-work 
> changes by filtering commits etc.
> 
> We don't *need* one but there are potential advantages and exactly zero 
> disadvantages I can think of, so unless somebody *can* think of one I 
> say we do it.

OK, I guess I don't have any substantial objection, so if you'd
like to set this up, I'll agree to use it :-)

jester