Subject: Re: seriousness of this Project
To: Martin Husemann <email@example.com>
From: Andy Ruhl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/07/2005 08:48:52
On 9/7/05, Martin Husemann <email@example.com> wrote:
> I had a quick look at the www mail archives and it's hard to tell what
> the current state is - Zafer, you sent tons of nits to fix, is any of
> that still open? I guess the most productive way would be to summarize
> the open issues to www@NetBSD.org.
Ok, in the sprit of my original claim that this was just a troll, and
what to do to make it not look like a troll, I'll reply.
I agree with the above. Make a group of pr's (if a pr was opened) for
each area, and then state what general problem might be responsible
for that group of pr's to still be open.
Like others have said, it's likely communication. I had a fairly
severe pr open for a while and I just recently emailed the author of
the offending source file and now I am happy to say that I'm part of
the solution for the pr. Mostly because I have the ability to build
and test fixes quickly. All of this came about from communication.
I think somewhere, someone has stated what form patches submitted to
the documentation project should take. These should be submitted.
I think I can add that a lot of the docs on the website ARE a little
outdated, and patching them probably isn't as efficient as just
re-writing. The savvy NetBSDer can probably interpret the docs and
apply this to the latest level, but it's hard to justify requiring
everyone to do this. If there is a new way to do something, it's hard
to just patch up the documentation sometimes. These types of
situations should probably be noted and treated separately, if the doc