Re: [boost] Guidelines on wiki

Subject: Re: [boost] Guidelines on wiki
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-26 09:18:08

On 26 March 2010 12:33, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daniel:
>>
>> Hopefully people with subversion access will be disciplined. But I
>> think you're right, it should be someone's responsibility to oversee
>> the wiki and keep things ordered. I think this page demonstrates that:
>>
>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/Guidelines/MaintenanceGuidelines
>
> It that a compliment or not ;-)
>
> (I'm sure it can still be improved!)

I wasn't commenting on any of the content, but the page is a bit of a
mish-mash, it needs a coherent focus. The 'user guidelines' are
probably out of place, since users aren't involved in maintenance. I
also don't understand why there are 'developer guidelines' and
'booster guidelines' (what's the difference?).

In the contents, 'Managing Warnings from Compilers' looks like a small
subsection, but is actually half the document. It should probably be
moved into a 'how to deal with warnings' article (not under
guidelines), with a shorter, more general guideline on this page that
would link to the article.

>>> Can we copy a snapshot of the wiki to the (definitely read-only) Boost
>>> site with every release?
>
>> My original plan was to just use the wiki, but I think you might right.
>> By using snapshots, viewing the page will be faster and it'll allow
>> people to freely edit the wiki pages. The workflow would be something
>> like: edit the page, ask on the list for a review, if accepted the
>> website manager imports the snapshot. Sounds okay?
>
> Yes - though I'm not sure if we need formal reviews - just asking on boost-docs list if anyone is unhappy might do as well.

Not a formal review, more along the lines of a patch review. The post
would usually be to the development list, especially for anything
which effects 'policy'. For other pages other lists might be
appropriate. Certain pages might have a clear owner (such as some of
the existing articles) and should be mostly left alone.

But I don't like the idea of taking a complete snapshot at some
arbitrary point. Maybe if we find that the wiki is moving to fast for
whoever manages the site to keep up. But I think we should only do
this for a limited number of pages, and that they should be fairly
static.

Daniel