On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 10:07 +0200, Kinkie wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3_at_treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> > So far this is only a 1 minute chat between Adrian and myself, but I think
> > its worthwhile doing and we all need to discuss at least.
> >
> > Issue: theres a lot of obsolete text in the FAQ.
> >
> > Adrians (probably joking): 'chuck it and start again'.
> > Amos: 'no, chuck everything only relevant for 2.5 and earlier, re-evaluate
> > based on whats left'
>
> I'd go for the latter: the FAQ is _huge_.
Folks are still using 2.5 so we should at least archive the old FAQ if
things get deleted. Deleting the whole thing is not a good option, IMO,
but it is a lot of work to review and cleanup each item.
Perhaps we can have two indexes into the same FAQ: one index links to
reviewed and reasonable accurate/fresh entries only. The other links to
all (or other?) entries. Both can be built automatically if we add a tag
to fresh/reviewed FAQ entries.
HTH,
Alex.
Received on Wed Aug 20 2008 - 17:48:28 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Aug 21 2008 - 12:00:05 MDT