From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EE4aF-0000Ed-8d for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:35:51 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8ACV9Pn013535; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:31:09 GMT Received: from www.suchdol.net (www.suchdol.net [82.208.33.2]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8ACV98C010900 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:31:09 GMT Received: from [10.18.6.61] (slon.basa.dejvice.czf [10.18.6.61]) by www.suchdol.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AB599A for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:35:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4322D2FD.30601@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:35:09 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Kundr=E1t?= Organization: Gentoo Linux User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050719) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-doc@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-doc@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-doc@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents References: <43206D3A.5030406@gentoo.org> <20050909165046.GA9727@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20050909165046.GA9727@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig1BA50EE8B59BF8F34B2E5B78" X-Archives-Salt: 310f4109-e262-42ba-a75d-85ab897399a0 X-Archives-Hash: b4995e8d5d92556d6c33b28ba0845b6f This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig1BA50EE8B59BF8F34B2E5B78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sven Vermeulen wrote: >>a) Third party article > > > We "can" fix those, but you don't see any news site "fix" their news items > after a year... they are kept online as a reference. You might want to write > a new article about the same subject but more accurate - having the old > article at your disposal can be very interesting. Well, I'm not talking about fixing, but marking *third-party* articles as such. > Although I can see why you want the chapters of the older handbooks "marked" > as out-dated, some people still use the older handbooks, especially if they > have older release media and want a networkless installation. > > But then again, that's not the point :) Personally, I don't think we need > anything red on those handbooks - I would refer to the people's common sense > when they are reading the 2004.3 handbook :) Okay, you've persuaded me :-). >>c) Translation in language which is not officially supported > > > We don't link that language; the documents are made available if you know > the URI (which is of course not difficult to grasp). Perhaps we can disable > viewing it entirely unless some variable is set (?override=1) but I don't > think we should. Neither do I. And yes, you (well, actually someone else, probably rane or flammie) are right, additional warning might scare users so they won't trust the translation which is very bad for the first stage of the process. > Yes, I know you want something to tell the users "Beware, this document > might contain wrong information" but then again, how would you know the > document gives wrong directives to the user? An old hardware-related guide > might still be perfectly valid - just not updated. Or a very recent guide > can contain erroneous commands while it is still actively maintained. I haven't said old document is wrong document, of course not. I was inspired by some bugreports touching articles. > Imo, as long as there is no AI that can inform us about the malicious > content of a document, we can't easily mark such documents as "outdated" or > "erroneous". I have made a small attempt by allowing us to mark a specific > bug as a showstopper in metadoc - as a result, the document will be unlinked > from the index page. This can be extended by adding-in a on top of > the document, but you'll have to fight Xavier with this as this results in > another few queries of metadoc and such and makes the XSL again more > obscure. Yep, the question is if it is worth the effort. I'm inclining to say "no", based on the arguments I've received (except for third-party articles :-) ). Cheers, -jkt -- cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth --------------enig1BA50EE8B59BF8F34B2E5B78 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDItL9amXfqERyJRcRApvBAJsH1dFyTAb7sCOADtASJLF9dpdBrACdGHRa q0tD5V4EdwBnosBOiiqL0xg= =/M4E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig1BA50EE8B59BF8F34B2E5B78-- -- gentoo-doc@gentoo.org mailing list