Normally I'm not in favour of splitting up the D newsgroup to much but I do think this one is a good idea.  What about a D documentation amendments newsgroup.  I'm not sure what it should be called?  I know we don't get to many messages on the subject but this would encourage more. 

Amendments would be in a snip it form that could simply be copied/pasted into the correct document.

Then Walter (who has said that he is behind on newsgroup reading) could easily make the changes at his leisure. I'm sure Walter would rather code then write the documentation.  This is one step that could help reduce Walters work load in that area and increase quality.

Jan?

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/

J Anderson wrote:
> 
> Normally I'm not in favour of splitting up the D newsgroup to much but I do think this one is a good idea.  What about a D documentation amendments newsgroup.  I'm not sure what it should be called?  I know we don't get to many messages on the subject but this would encourage more.
> 
> Amendments would be in a snip it form that could simply be copied/pasted into the correct document.
> 
> Then Walter (who has said that he is behind on newsgroup reading) could easily make the changes at his leisure. I'm sure Walter would rather code then write the documentation.  This is one step that could help reduce Walters work load in that area and increase quality.

This is easier in a wiki, because you can rework the text.

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:21:55 +0800, J Anderson <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote:

> Normally I'm not in favour of splitting up the D newsgroup to much but I do think this one is a good idea.  What about a D documentation amendments newsgroup.  I'm not sure what it should be called?

digitalmars.D.docs?

you could use it for any/everything to do with the docs, not just bugs.
or

digitalmars.D.bugs.docs

but that would suggest we also create

digitalmars.D.bugs.compiler
digitalmars.D.bugs.linker
digitalmars.D.bugs.phobos

.. or .. not.

> I know we don't get to many messages on the subject but this would encourage more. Amendments would be in a snip it form that could simply be copied/pasted into the correct document.
>
> Then Walter (who has said that he is behind on newsgroup reading) could easily make the changes at his leisure. I'm sure Walter would rather code then write the documentation.  This is one step that could help reduce Walters work load in that area and increase quality.

I think it would be beneficial for Walter to have these smaller groups which he could more easily keep up with containing the things he really needs to look at.

The main NG is full of great discussion but can often hide the issue amongst a large number of posts.

Regan.


-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Helmut Leitner wrote:
> 
> J Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Normally I'm not in favour of splitting up the D newsgroup to much but I do think this one is a good idea.  What about a D documentation amendments newsgroup.  I'm not sure what it should be called?  I know we don't get to many messages on the subject but this would encourage more.
> >
> > Amendments would be in a snip it form that could simply be copied/pasted into the correct document.
> >
> > Then Walter (who has said that he is behind on newsgroup reading) could easily make the changes at his leisure. I'm sure Walter would rather code then write the documentation.  This is one step that could help reduce Walters work load in that area and increase quality.
> 
> This is easier in a wiki, because you can rework the text.

for example:
  <http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocumentationAmendments>

-- 
Helmut Leitner    leitner@hls.via.at
Graz, Austria   www.hls-software.com

Helmut Leitner wrote:
> 
> Helmut Leitner wrote:
> 
>>J Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>Normally I'm not in favour of splitting up the D newsgroup to much but I
>>>do think this one is a good idea.  What about a D documentation
>>>amendments newsgroup.  I'm not sure what it should be called?  I know we
>>>don't get to many messages on the subject but this would encourage more.
>>>
>>>Amendments would be in a snip it form that could simply be copied/pasted
>>>into the correct document.
>>>
>>>Then Walter (who has said that he is behind on newsgroup reading) could
>>>easily make the changes at his leisure. I'm sure Walter would rather
>>>code then write the documentation.  This is one step that could help
>>>reduce Walters work load in that area and increase quality.
>>
>>This is easier in a wiki, because you can rework the text.
> 
> 
> for example:
>   <http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocumentationAmendments> 

I agree that a wiki is well-suited to this task. I already put a documentation error on the page you set up.



-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

In article <40CEDD35.BDCFB5D@wikiservice.at>, Helmut Leitner says...
>
>
>
>Helmut Leitner wrote:
>> 
>> J Anderson wrote:
>> >
>> > Normally I'm not in favour of splitting up the D newsgroup to much but I do think this one is a good idea.  What about a D documentation amendments newsgroup.  I'm not sure what it should be called?  I know we don't get to many messages on the subject but this would encourage more.
>> >
>> > Amendments would be in a snip it form that could simply be copied/pasted into the correct document.
>> >
>> > Then Walter (who has said that he is behind on newsgroup reading) could easily make the changes at his leisure. I'm sure Walter would rather code then write the documentation.  This is one step that could help reduce Walters work load in that area and increase quality.
>> 
>> This is easier in a wiki, because you can rework the text.
>
>for example:
>  <http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?DocumentationAmendments>

What about suggested/requested D document changes?

I guess the wiki would allow others to "unsuggest" them.