Re: [PHP-DOC] Manual Errata Clean Up From: Ron Chmara (ron <email protected>)
Date: 07/31/00

James Moore wrote:
> Hi,
> Not much seems to be happening,

Er.. well, I spent 4-5 hours on it last night, cleaned up a good ten or fifteen
different pages, and I was spending most of my time on deletions and post
editing/aggregation. For now, I've been leaving the portions that would
require actual documentation edits.

> perhaps if your helping with this you can
> email me/the list and we can divide which parts of the manual each person
> will look at

I'd be happy to take on opening/install info (preface, etc.), strings, postgres,
and LDAP.. along with any other pages I run into in magic cookie mode...
I spent a chunk of time last night cleaning up the preface and first section,
some of strings and postgres.

For communications between who's doing what:
We can set up a full fledged server group alias somewhere, make an egroup, or
just leave all the errata-tender correspondance here (PHP-DOC)....

> and clean up as well as a uniform system for dealing with the
> annotations.

Some random thoughts on this issue:
1. Multiple proofreaders is better than one.
2. If there is too sharp of a division, we'll wind up with extremely *separate*
rulesets used for determining what is, and isn't, a valid/helpful/reasonable
annotation, being applied to different sections...
3. Having a common set of rules is good, anyways, to reduce the amount of
disagreements of when, for example, a bug workaround is considered a misplaced
bug report (delete!) or a helpful annotation (keep until bug is fixed).
4. Having non-defined sections means that people who have more time can
feel free to work on many sections without "stepping on toes". It allows for
a few MySQL savvy people to trawl through the MySQL notes, rather than waiting
for the "assigned MySQL guy" to do the section.
5. The most frequently used sections (MySQL) will actually _benefit_ from
having multiple authors/editors, won't they?

> The system that Ron Chmara suggested looks good IMHO but rather
> than setting off today and going over the same material as other people
> perhaps we should *try* to oragnise this a bit.

Well, I've already plowed into it, since _looking_ at the annotation posts to
evaluate their worth isn't very time consuming, if we all keep to the same
general criteria, that should help... the only thing we're missing in that
approach is getting work done on the sections that _aren't_ frequently
viewed. So there's some organization on the "post criteria", but not
for the handling of less-than-popular manual sections.

I'm not sure who else is an online errata-doc-tender with CVS access, but
I can take 'em in now, if you want to send me edits, along with either
section info or something else to get me close to the section to be edited.

-Bop 

--
Brought to you from boop!, the dual boot Linux/Win95 Compaq Presario 1625
laptop, currently running RedHat 6.1. Your bopping may vary.