Difference between revisions of "Talk:Documentation"
SamHartman (talk | contribs) (New page: Why is this page appropriate for k5wiki? Note that the point of the wiki is to be a resource for those developing MIT Kerberos. IT seems that most of our docs are for those using MIT Ke...) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Why is this page appropriate for k5wiki? Note that the point of the wiki is to be a resource for those developing MIT Kerberos. IT seems that most of our docs are for those using MIT Kerberos either as developers, administrators or end-users. There is a significant difference between developers using MIT Kerberos and developers developing MIT Kerberos. |
Why is this page appropriate for k5wiki? Note that the point of the wiki is to be a resource for those developing MIT Kerberos. IT seems that most of our docs are for those using MIT Kerberos either as developers, administrators or end-users. There is a significant difference between developers using MIT Kerberos and developers developing MIT Kerberos. |
||
--[[User:SamHartman|SamHartman]] 10:08, 25 March 2008 (EDT) |
--[[User:SamHartman|SamHartman]] 10:08, 25 March 2008 (EDT) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Good point. Should it exist at all? I was thinking of it being a documentation status page: what's in progress, what's next in the queue. Since it's not really participatory, does it belong on the internal web site? It might be nice to keep krbmit apprised. |
||
| + | |||
| + | :You said this in person. That addresses my concerns. --[[User:SamHartman|SamHartman]] 04:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Should we solicit input from developers on docs? Specific bugs go into the bug database, but do we want to know if they think we're missing a manual that should exist? |
||
| + | |||
| + | :No. We should solicit sponsors for information on what docs we should write. Steve has basically done that. |
||
| + | :--[[User:SamHartman|SamHartman]] 04:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT) |
||
| + | |||
| + | Perhaps a documentation section on the public web page, with links to latest-n-greatest versions of docs? |
||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Estone|Estone]] 21:57, 10 April 2008 (EDT) |
||
| + | |||
| + | clarified purpose and status of this page. |
||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Estone|Estone]] 16:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT) |
||
Latest revision as of 15:45, 22 April 2008
Why is this page appropriate for k5wiki? Note that the point of the wiki is to be a resource for those developing MIT Kerberos. IT seems that most of our docs are for those using MIT Kerberos either as developers, administrators or end-users. There is a significant difference between developers using MIT Kerberos and developers developing MIT Kerberos. --SamHartman 10:08, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
Good point. Should it exist at all? I was thinking of it being a documentation status page: what's in progress, what's next in the queue. Since it's not really participatory, does it belong on the internal web site? It might be nice to keep krbmit apprised.
- You said this in person. That addresses my concerns. --SamHartman 04:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Should we solicit input from developers on docs? Specific bugs go into the bug database, but do we want to know if they think we're missing a manual that should exist?
- No. We should solicit sponsors for information on what docs we should write. Steve has basically done that.
- --SamHartman 04:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps a documentation section on the public web page, with links to latest-n-greatest versions of docs?
--Estone 21:57, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
clarified purpose and status of this page.
--Estone 16:45, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
