[Bug 427481] Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481





------- Additional Comments From lbrindle at redhat.com  2008-01-10 23:43 EST -------
The main arguments against documentation-devel seem to be that it is "too
generic" and doesn't fit existing convention.

Being "too generic" is not, in this case, necessarily a bad thing.
Documentation-devel is a very broad tool. Not only is it broad now, but it has
the capacity to become even broader. The name is certainly canonical, as jwulf
stated, but so it should be - no other tool exists that is like it (afaik).

Convention is rather a loose term - particularly in FOSS. The existing
documentation on what is considered 'conventional' varies greatly from project
to project and, as mentioned by jens peterson in comment #10 "our package naming
guidelines ... were vague on this case." With that in mind, documentation-devel
is a set of tools for the development of documentation - this seems logical to me.

Add to this the fact that the name is not being used, the fact that the name is
commonly known in the society (evidenced by the Google ranking) and the fact
that it has been used under this name for a lengthy period of time. 

Having a 'too generic' name could impact some users, most though would search on
the term 'Documentation' and, through great Google rankings, will find the tool
they're after. Changing the name at this stage *will* negatively impact a large
body of users. From a cost/benefit perspective, having a 'too generic' name is a
small price to pay.

Perhaps we should be concentrating on the tool and not the name. It is a
fantastic tool that I have been using for nearly six months now, and from the
feedback I have had there is a definite need for it to be released to the wider
community. We all owe a debt of gratitude to jfearn, not the injustice of
squabbling over the name of the thing. 

The principal of FOSS is that we all get to take part in the development and use
of tools that simply wouldn't be available otherwise. Why are we getting hung up
because a name is "too generic"?

The tool works, and the community want it. Let's concentrate on getting it out
there and we can bicker over it later.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.