Need your help: Docs in the wiki

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Michael Schwendt schrieb:
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:48:03 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
>> I took a quick look into the Extras/part of the wiki. I did some
>> cleanups here and there, but there were some things I didn't want to
>> decide or fix on my own:
> You've reverted some of my cleanups from 1-2 days ago. ;-)

Sorry. Was not on purpose.

> Now there is one big misplaced section "For Developers" again in which you
> can get lost easily.

Well, before I got over it and moved things back and forth I found some
thing in sections where I wouldn't have found them myself. So it was
intuitive either afaics.

> Searching for things becomes to difficult.

Feel free to enhance it again. But the old way was worse imho.

> The table
> of contents is gone, too.

I was not sure it it made much sense and I removed it therefore. But if
people disagree just add it again.

Maybe we should simply split the whole page into three pages -- one for
users, one for developers, and one new Frontpage.

>> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/BuildRequests
>> - not linked from Extras/ Frontpage
>> - should probably be merged into
>> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/BuildSystemClientSetup
> The page is linked from the FCXStatus page. This has historical reasons,
> as originally build requests were submitted via those Wiki pages.

Well, I doubt new contributors are to much interested in historical
things (read: they get confused by it). Let's try to get rid of the old
cruft.

>> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackagesFC4
>> - do we still need that
> Unimportant. It doesn't hurt to keep it until FC7 Test1. A drawback of
> Wiki based tracking is that over time information like these lists get
> inaccurate.

Exactly. That why I removed some old stuff ;-)

>> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/TreeMaintenance
>> - not linked from Extras/ Frontpage
> Could need a minor update, but doesn't make sense to put it on the
> front page until we re-introduce more sub-sections there.

Well, it is linked to from anywhere? I'd say put it there.

> [...]

CU
thl