Re: Docs Status

On 5 December 2014 at 21:07, Shaun McCance <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on generalizing the page-level status tracking we've used
> for a few years now to get buy-in from some other projects on a common
> documentation lifecycle. Recall ours looks like this:
>
> https://wiki.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/StatusTracking
>
> And it got non-normatively memorialized in the Mallard spec:
>
> http://projectmallard.org/1.0/mal_info_revision
>
> All of you have been using this for a while now, so I'd like to solicit
> feedback on it to see how it could be improved, as well as what works
> well right now. Bullet list of questions:
>
> * Are there any statuses on the list you never use?
>
> * Do you find yourself wanting a status that's not on the list? I know
> we've used a few ad-hoc statuses at hackfests, but I can't remember what
> we used them for.
>
> * Are any statuses confusingly named? I remember "review" wasn't very
> popular because it's not an adjective. It's really "ready for review",
> but I wanted a succinct word.
>
> * Are any statuses otherwise poorly named? I remember Jim didn't like
> "outdated" because it was demotivating to have all your stuff called
> outdated once you release. That might be a place for an additional
> status. One for "need to check if this is up to date" and one for "we
> checked and we know it ain't".

My more ideal workflow would generally go along the lines of none ->
draft/toreview (i.e. ready for review) -> candidate (i.e. ready for
final review) -> final -> outdated

I find that I currently don't really use "stub", "draft" and
"incomplete" as I tend to keep the pages as .page.stub until they are
ready for a review because we don't want to include incomplete or poor
pages in a release.

> * What's your favorite kind of cheese?
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> --
> Shaun
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-doc-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list