Re: Regarding: faq.xml.qna issues

Le 7 mai 2005 à 15:36, Geert Stappers a écrit :
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 09:34:21PM +0200, Michèle Garoche wrote:
>> Le 27 avr. 2005 à 21:04, Sean Wheller a écrit :
>>> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 21:13, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> Question, do we want FAQ in the user manual? It is not  
>>>>> customary at
>>>>> GNOME.
>>>>>
>> The problem I reported was that first the help menu does not work on
>> Mac, not related to conglomerate, but to the gnome help which has
>> hard-coded the path, hence there is no possibility to access the
>> files. Second that nobody knows that there is a faq, hence there is
>> no chance that the user sees it. That's why I suggested to
>> incorporate it in the faq and supplied a working patch for it, which
>> was rejected for reasons I cannot understand. Then a new not working
>> patch was supplied and accepted for reasons I cannot understand  
>> either.
>>
>> So that now the faq is still outside of the manual, which was not the
>> goal and did not compile since it relies on a local stylesheet.
>>
>> So that now I cannot even compile conglomerate, unless I supply
>> another patch, will will presumably also be rejected, etc.
>>
>> Feel like I don't have fun to work like this. Even less be flamed by
>> people who did not even try the patches, before rejected them.
> I see in the above posting more then just a technical problem.
Me too, it's more a problem of communication or to say it with my  
words a problem of having the same respect for all people. I mean I  
may not be (and actually I'm not) the most skilled person, when I  
supply a patch, it works, because I've indeed compiled conglomerate  
with it before submitted it, which is far from being the case for all  
supplied patches from what I can see.
Then the decision to take it into account is more a matter of do  
conglomerate team want that or not. I say here conglomerate team  
because I don't feel like I'm part of it the way things go.
And that's also not a problem for me. I can always integrate a  
special patch for mac users. But when I see that's the problem is not  
Mac specific, that's when I propose a patch, as it may benefit all  
users.

> This E-mail is about how I see it.
>
> Where I'm aware the I can express myself somethings really clumsy,
> I take the risc to do again. No bad intensions. Just realizing that
> I could be part of the problem and wanna be part of the solution.
Absolutely not here, Geert. Except maybe that you did not answer my  
question very quickly, which was "if I supply the patch it will turn  
the faq into an article, is it a problem". So that another person  
takes the problem without having understood the goal.

> Then Michele came up with a patch on the doc directory. Having learned
> from previous mistakes, I choose the really harsh way and did not
> respond[2]. The patch was AFAICT never rejected, but completely  
> ignored.
I did not talk about that one.

> Next came a workaround on yelp not being able the handle QandA.
> The original faq.xml became faq.xml.qna. faq.xml is generated from
> faq.xml.qna, so there was a faq.xml available for yelp. ( the XSL
> transformation from faq.xml.qna into faq.xml changes the QandA that  
> yelp
> doesn't handle )  http://www.conglomerate.org/faq.html is also  
> generated
> from faq.xml.qna.  Credits go to Jeff Martin.
That's where the problem comes. I did supply a patch just before  
which was not even read. And frankly I cannot give credits here in  
the sense that the patch does not work.

> Now we have the report that the manual from the doc directory is not
> available on all systems.
I've already said that before the new patch comes and indeed the  
patch I supplied was for solving this problem.

> That can happen, nobody has all systems.
> Luckly the report came and we saw response on it. That didn't fix the
> problem, but nobody was left alone in the dark.
I'm sorry but I disagree here. That's not enough to know something  
does not work, the goal is to make it work in a way or another. Just  
talking about it is kind of wasting time for me.

> What I am trying to say is that when things go the wrong way,
> then spent more words on it.
I've already use so much words on it that I really don't know what I  
can say more.

And I, personnally, care about the user's manual and also the faq  
(integrated or not into the user's manual) be available to the users.  
Otherwise why bother even with writing a manual or a faq?

As well as I care about conglomerate working for Mac users. Actually  
I care about it working for all users, but here I cannot do anything,  
apart the fink's, aka the Mac's, part.

Take it in good part, I just want things (compilation, usage and  
communication) better and not feeling me like the bad duck.

Cheers,
Michèle
<http://micmacfr.homeunix.org>