Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:37:30 -0500
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 12:18, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> yesterday there was a discussion on mono-list about some
> inaccuracies in the Monkeyguide. The problem is that these
> inaccuracies are very common and widely spread.
> Am thinking of taking down the Monkeyguide from the Web and remove
> it from shipping in Monodoc until we have done a full editorial/review
> pass over it.
I agree with you. Either we get a review, or we do not have the docs.
The only thing worse than no docs is wrong docs, they just increase a
However, I would hope that Novell will help use get documentation by the
time we hit 1.0. It would be a *horrible* idea to release without enough
docs to get people started.
Also, we should try to pull out the GNOME.NET chapter, as it is good.
Maybe what we should do is to create a minimal monkeyguide, with the
`known good' content. Everything else will be in CVS, but not released.
If a person decides either to start documentation, or to review old
content, we can add it. To be included by default, we should require the
review of a hacker. Also, we should make a clear policy on
maintainership. For non-static APIs (such as Gtk#), I think any content
that is more than 2 releases out of date should be re-yanked. For
information about the project (eg, an install guide), information that
is more than 1 release old should be yanked.
As well, I would suggest that we put a `last reviewed' date on each
page. We could also somehow markup the page as to how likely it is to go
out of date. For example, the install instructions might say that they
are likely to go out of date within one month. If monodoc found that the
user was viewing the page and that it was more than one month old, it
would put a big red warning on the top or something.