[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: News 2009-08-31, documentation, wiki

From: Thomas Schwinge
Subject: Re: News 2009-08-31, documentation, wiki
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:46:30 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 08:53:35AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:16:29AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:08:23AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > > Anyway, I hope the solution I suggested above (adding the
> > > documentation to my hurd-web page) should be good.
> > 
> > There's no need to (more or less) hide the information on your user
> > page.
> Let me remind you that it was you who turned the individual GSoC project
> pages into user pages... :-)

That might be.  :-) But as you say: the web pages are in flux, are easily
refactored, and so on.

> As I already said in another mail, the main reason why I ask for
> "perfect" patches is for practice... Not every patch needs to be
> perfect; but creating good patches is an important skill in general.

OK, I can subscribe to that.

> What bothers me more are discussions that are more or less on topic, and
> yet totally unproductive -- like the circular discussion about opaque
> memory etc. that took place here some months ago. Unlike with totally
> off-topic one, there is actually a reason for the developers to continue
> participating it such discussions; and thus they drain much more time
> and energy than totally off-topic stuff...

Adapt my habit of putting such stuff into the wiki -- unfurnished as it
is at that time, and then refactor it later, piece by piece.  This way
there'll always be a place to direct people to when there's the need to
get everyone up to speed on a specific topic, a place that already
answers a lot of questions before people ask them again and again, and
get them explained again and again, taking everyone's time again and
again.  For a lot of projects it even works out to have complete
discussions in the wiki (of course, along the way refactoring what was
written before) -- then that's already mostly like concurrently editing a

> But if you think we should introduce a stricter off-topic policy for
> this list, I wouldn't really object either :-)

Well, not necessarily.  If everyone thinks twice before beginning to
reply to an off-topic email then that should be fine already.  (As in:
only publically reply to these that you deem to be interesting for more
than three people in the audience.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]