[oneiric] Where should we keep the serverguide?

[Jim Campbell]

On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Matthew East <mdke at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would like to raise this issue for discussion.
>
> Up to and including Natty the serverguide document has been kept in
> the ubuntu-docs branch. However since Maverick there is no serverguide
> package and the serverguide is not included at all in the
> distribution. It seems to me that it might be sensible to take
> serverguide out of the ubuntu-docs branch and keep the ubuntu-docs
> branch for documents which are being used in the build of the
> ubuntu-docs package and which are going into the distribution.
>
> Pros:
>
> * Bugs can be kept separately in a "serverguide" upstream project:
>  - users would not have to file bugs on a source package in a
> distribution that in reality does not ship the document
>  - those wishing to contribute to the serverguide would be able to
> find bugs more easily and work on them.
> * It will be easier for contributors (e.g. contributors to the Ubuntu
> Server project) to get and work on the code without also getting
> desktop help.
> * The serverguide project would still be part of the ubuntu-doc
> umbrella project and the principal code can be managed by the
> ~ubuntu-core-doc team.
> * No need to confuse contributors by having two different document
> formats (Mallard, Docbook) and two different build systems
> (gnome-user-docs and our manual scripts) in the ubuntu-docs branch.
>
> Cons:
>
> * Possible divergence away from the ubuntu-docs core work?
>
> I think that gradually we will have to get used to finding
> documentation in various different places (ubuntu-docs, application
> documents, upstream documents) and the aim of keeping everything in
> one place (which I have always been a strong supporter of) is probably
> no longer an essential goal.
>
> I'd be interested to hear what people think about this idea.
>
>
I think that the points you mention above would make a good case for moving
the server guide into it's own project in Launchpad. Doc team contributors
could fix bugs in the server guide if they wanted to help out, but it would
simplify things for those who wanted to only contribute to the server guide.


If I consider it from the perspective of someone coming in from the outside
who is wanting to contribute to server documentation, it would be a pain to
have to wade through desktop-help bugs to find those related to server docs.
Also, having to branch the desktop help when I only want to work on the
server guide could be confusing.

As for possible divergence from Ubuntu docs core work concerns, If they want
to switch away from DocBook or use some kind of new platform (moving to more
web-based help or something like that, which would be sensible given how net
access can reasonably be assumed for someone working on a server) we could
work in concert with them on those efforts and decisions.

In all, a +1 for this from me.  Would be good to hear from Adam on this,
though.

Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20110501/715066aa/attachment.html>