Re: Patch formalization

Dear Alejandro,

Unfortunately not having docbook on my minimal server to generate the latest 
User Manual, I opted for the HTML version in the site. A month ago it was 
version 1.4.0, now it is renamed to 1.4.1. I believe it must be 4 yrs old. 
It is labeled as "more current" than the development. Not finding anything 
else, I figured out that it was the latest.

It caused me a lot of grief. I tried to configure my box using the wrong 
manual and had to resort to the source code many times over. Thanks for 
pointing out the more current XML sources, it would be even nicer to get the 
CVS manual out to the web (CVS, Stable, Development).

BR,
Nikos

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Patch formalization


Nikos,

The manual on the site is rendered to HTML, PDF and other formats from
a DocBook XML file, userguide.xml available on Kannel's source code.
Its content has been updated a lot of times.

Regards,

Alejandro Guerrieri

El 21/11/2008, a las 11:40 p.m., Nikos Balkanas escribiΓ³:

> Hi Alej
>
> I knew of only the HTML manual in the site, some ~8y old. Is there a  more 
> recent version in XML?
>
> BR,
> Nikos
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alejandro Guerrieri" 
> <[email protected]
> >
> To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Stipe Tolj" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 2:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Patch formalization
>
>
> Well, for the last few years, though maybe not a strict policy,
> patches that modified the functionality were always suggested to have
> a patch to the documentation XML as well.
>
> I remember many patches that were put on hold until a proper
> documentation patch was in place as well.
>
> I also agree with that: Patches that modify user-interface, implement
> new functionality or modify what the manual says in any way should
> always include a patch for documentation.
>
> The quality of the documentation being added is as important as the
> patch itself IMO. Otherwise, we'd end having to check the source code
> to figure out functionality, completely missing the point of having
> documentation on the first place.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro Guerrieri
>
> El 21/11/2008, a las 10:08 p.m., Nikos Balkanas escribiΓ³:
>
>> Hi Stipe,
>>
>> Very nicely done, especially the mantis system. But you are  missing  a 
>> very important point. What I was driving at was that any  submitted 
>> patch should include a patch also of the manual. This is  already in 
>> HTML form and needs to be in the CVS, if not already.
>>
>> It might take some time to setup mantis and the HTML, time that the 
>> manual shouldn't have to wait. The manual can be implemented as  soon  as 
>> a decision is reached.
>>
>> BR,
>> Nikos
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stipe Tolj" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 1:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: Patch formalization
>>
>>
>>> Nikos Balkanas schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I see a lot of patches going around on this group. I would like to
>>>> propose not to accept patches unless the relevant points are   updated 
>>>> in
>>>> the documentation. Furthermore I suggest that this should be a
>>>> distributed effort by each submitter. Too much I think has  fallen  on 
>>>> the
>>>> shoulders of Alex trying to verify the code, to be able to   maintain 
>>>> the
>>>> documentation as well. Of course that would mean that documentation
>>>> needs to get in the CVS if not already there. And definitely this
>>>> applies only to new features/improvements, not to bug fixes.
>>>>
>>>> This should facilitate also traffic in the group, inasmuch new   users,
>>>> like me, ask, over and over again, a lot of questions that are   either
>>>> outdated or nonexistent in the manual. A searchable mail list   would 
>>>> be
>>>> an improvement but could not substitute for a current manual.
>>>>
>>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>> agreed.
>>>
>>> We have those 'formal guidelines' for [PATCH] submission, but I   guess 
>>> it
>>> wouldn't hurt to setup a simple .html page on the web site to  make 
>>> them more
>>> universal available.
>>>
>>> Main policy items, IMO:
>>>
>>> 1. where to submit: devel@ list.
>>> 2. subject prefixing: [PATCH] my foobar patch that does
>>> 3. form of the patch: diff -u against CVS HEAD at 'gateway' root
>>> 4. form of source code: gateway/doc/CodingStyle should be obeyed
>>> 5. explanation of the patch: the more the reviewers "understand"   the 
>>> easier to
>>> review, and then vote. This enhances the patch post to commit cycle
>>> 6. all 'open' patches should be maintained in mantis (bug tracking 
>>> system) too,
>>> at least as reference (i.e. via the mailing list Msg-Id) and the   patch 
>>> itself
>>> attachment. This helps us to maintain a single point of view to  see 
>>> what pathces
>>> are still pending.
>>> 7. any patch that introduces a behavior change needs votes, hence 
>>> consensus of
>>> the group.
>>> 8. obvious bug fixes can be committed directly, but should be 
>>> noticeable to the
>>> devel@ list with the same subject prefixing.
>>>
>>> any more? or comments on these?
>>>
>>> Stipe
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> KΞβ€Ξ’Β¶lner Landstrasse 419
>>> 40589 DΞβ€Ξsseldorf, NRW, Germany
>>>
>>> tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
>>> http://www.tolj.org/              http://www.kannel.org/
>>>
>>> mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org           mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>