Re: Tech Docs and Consultants

Quoting Scott Lamb <slamb(at)slamb(dot)org>:

> On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 12:35 US/Central, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Nor does your suggestion solve the problem of how to get the documents
>
> > on the
> > web page if the submitter doesn't have CVS access ....
>
> I'm not sure I understand the CVS requirement as a big problem. I see
> people not wanting CVS for two reasons:
>
> - Requiring submitters to understand CVS. But honestly, I'm not sure
> about the quality of any tech document written by someone who doesn't.

Here's a really good, practical example.

I personally hadn't gotten the hang of CVS at all until just a few months ago,
having to learn it to become really involved with the eRServer project
(PostgreSQL Enterprise Replication Server).

One of the significant contributing reasons to the jobs.postgresql.org site not
getting off the ground was because everyone who wanted to work on it had to
commit to CVS in order to do anything.

CVS *is* too much complexity to ask for us to achieve the best level of
contribution.

That's a (personal) firm opinion from being a person that didn't understand
CVS, coming through to now using it daily.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> - Requiring submitters to have a CVS account. I've contributed via CVS
> to many projects at which I have no account. I make a patch file and
> send it to someone who does. I don't think that creates much more work
> for me or them.
>
> Scott
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
>