[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 07:34:30AM +0000, Terry Dawson wrote:
> "der.hans" wrote:
> > Maybe we should copy the Debian model more
> > closely, e.g. assign LDP maintainers who take the upstream docs and get it
> > to fit LDP wishes. If the upstream doc format really conflicts it'd suck,
> > but for most cases it wouldn't be bad. As in the Debian model, the
> > upstream maintainer could also be the LDP maintainer. This gets someone
> > form LDP to be working more closely with upstream maintainers or hopefully
> > gets upstream maintainers to work more closely with the LDP :).
> It's a nice idea. One of the big advantages of this is that if the LDP
> sets up a bug reporting system the maintainer of the document can feed
> collated/vetted patches to the upstream author for introduction into the
> mainstream, significantly reducing the work that the primary author has
> to do.
Since LDP doesn't deal with documentation on specific software, there
just aren't any "upstream" authors. Would we try to recruit upstream
authors who would give their docs both to LDP and other organizations?
Wouldn't it be simpler the way it works now?
I would rather keep the present direct contact system rather than a
bug reporting system. Often feedback is neither a bug nor a
suggestion. It's a question. If this question was not answered in
the HOWTO (or well enough explained), then the HOWTO may need to be
modified. If you have a bug tracking system, will questions be
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org