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...) |
|||
| 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. |
||
| + | |||
| + | 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? |
||
| + | |||
| + | 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) |
||
Revision as of 20:57, 10 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.
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?
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)
