Re: Wiki for developers

This looks much better and is probably  a wrap for OSCON.

Ted

On Jul 21, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:

> Behold, the new and improved developers wiki:
>
> http://chandlerproject.org/Developers/WebHome
>
> It probably still needs a little tweaking, in particular getting  
> the documentation links right for both projects and the intro text  
> right for cosmo/server.
>
> Cheers,
> Katie
>
> Ted Leung wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
>>> Here are my current thoughts...
>>>
>>> - The purpose of the "engineering" wiki area is for developers:  
>>> core developers working on the project, developers who might  
>>> contribute a patch or two, developers who want to use the server  
>>> for CalDAV testing, developers who want to write desktop plugins,  
>>> developers who want to write applications that pull data from the  
>>> server using Atom or some other protocol, developers writing  
>>> automated tests, etc.
>>>
>>> - The "engineering area" home page is a starting point for any of  
>>> these people. It needs a brief description/overview of the server  
>>> and destop, and needs obvious links to this information:
>>>    * finding core developers (irc, mailing lists, etc.)
>>>    * getting source (and building, etc.)
>>>    * getting more technical info (architecture docs, protocol  
>>> specs, etc.)
>>>    * logging bugs and getting involved with testing
>>>    * finding information about sub-components or projects
>> I'm in agreement with the above.
>>>
>>> - We could also add a "hacking" link for each project -- info for  
>>> getting started coding that is aimed at someone new to the  
>>> project. That assumes that a "hacking" page includes useful  
>>> information not redundant to the above.
>> I't unclear to me that we actually need a "hacking" link.
>>>
>>> - We could have a "project dashboard" page for both server and  
>>> desktop, focused around release management: bug lists, links to  
>>> tinderboxes, links to planning pages for current release, etc.
>> I think that this is a good idea.
>>>
>>> - The open source license needs to be clearly identified
>> Yes, but probably via a link.
>>>
>>> I don't think we need an exact equivalent of the original desktop  
>>> "for developers" page -- that was a short term solution for a  
>>> particular release.
>>>
>>> I think the main page for the twisted project is a good example  
>>> of tone and level of information: http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/.  
>>> (Most people interested in twisted are developers).
>>>
>>> Also, I wonder if "Engineering" is the wrong term -- perhaps we  
>>> should go with "Developer Area".
>> I strongly agree with this.  Engineering is too oriented around  
>> OSAF's organizational structure.
>> Ted
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general