Moving Quassel forward

Daniel Albers daniel at lbe.rs
Wed Dec 4 10:38:25 CET 2013


On 03.12.2013 21:57, Manuel Nickschas wrote:
> On Monday 25 November 2013 20:30:46 Bas Pape wrote:
>> The reason I recommended to ditch the wiki is because it's an
>> exceptionally freeform medium and everything added goes into
>> "production" immediately. This would mean that in order to ensure
>> quality, the wiki would have to be monitored actively.
>> On IRC it was suggested a centralized effort could be done using a wiki
>> too, but this would mostly mean just laying down some guides to denote
>> areas that need work and perhaps limit scope to some extent. I highly
>> doubt that such an approach would get things done and maintain
>> consistency. Next to that, it would complicate getting plaintext docs
>> and formatted docs for offline use (i.e. in the package).
> 
> So, yes. If we keep the docs inside the repo, we can apply the usual review 
> process to ensure that they're high quality. And it would probably much easier 
> to find trusted and capable reviewers for that part of the repo than it is for 
> the actual code. That leaves the question of which format would be suitable...

I like how docker integrated the documentation¹, note the edit link on
the bottom right.
Maybe we could even steal^wfork their whole web page²?


[1] http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/
[2] https://github.com/dotcloud/www.docker.io


More information about the quassel-users mailing list