On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:37 AM, mrts <mrts.py...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 6:21 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: >> James spoke with me about this decision at the time, and I completely >> agree with and endorse his actions. > > So be it then. > >> While it is true that wikis contain all sorts of information, often >> unofficial, the naming of the wiki pages in question -- >> DjangoSpecifications/Core -- conveyed a *very* strong signal that the >> information contained was official in some capacity. Regardless of the >> merits of the information on that page, the simple fact remains that >> it *isn't* official, and it *wasn't* vetted or edited by anyone in the >> core. > > The naming was an unfortunate mistake that dates back two > years-ish when I was trying to advocate supplementing the > mailing list discussions (that tended to be much lengthier > and more diffuse as Django was still much in flux back then) > with specification pages on the wiki (that usually tend to > coalesce to clear, to-the-point documents faster) -- > inspired by Python's PEP process. Although I failed horribly > back then, I'm glad that everybody writes them nowadays > without much bravado and high ritual ([1], [2], [3], ...). > That's clearly the best way to do it. > > The ill-named location doesn't render the information less > valuable in my opinion.
The *value* of the information is not in question. The *presentation* is. If there is valuable information about using Django, we want it to be in our official documentation. We want it to be edited, proof read, validated, and incorporated into our official documentation. Django has very good documentation. We want it to have excellent documentation. We achieve that goal by having people contribute in a common way - by submitting patches to our our official documentation - not by developing independent sources of authority elsewhere on the djangoprojet.com website. > I've referred to the review on > several occasions myself, also, Graham links to that page > from > http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/IntegrationWithDjango > . But, evidently, I may be biased (being the "author"). > >> If you think there is some valuable information in the wiki pages that >> were deleted, then you need to turn that information into either >> tickets in Trac, or a draft for addition to the official >> documentation. If you think there is some information on that page >> that doesn't fit into the official locations that Django currently >> provides, then we need to have a meta-discussion around the right >> place to house information of that sort. > > Although I personally would like to see a wiki section that > collects all the fine technical documents already referred > to above ([1], [2], [3], ...) + unofficial "internals" docs > in the vein of the threading review, I believe no-one will > step up to compile one. So let it be. You're missing my point. We don't want to have an unofficial documentation section *at all*. If there is a hole in our documentation, then we want to plug that hole with an official resource. [1], [2], and [3] aren't permanent documentation - they're scratch documents that are (or were) used to develop the design of a feature. Once the feature is complete, the temporary wiki document should be replaced with a permanent official documentation page - for example, [4] is the official analog of [2]. [4] http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/contrib/csrf/ > P.S. What about > http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/CollaborateOnGithub > that I have been maintaining? Should that also be maintained > outside of Django wiki? This doesn't concern me as much, for three reasons: 1) It's not something about the core operation of Django itself - it's about how to use an external tool to help you contribute to Django. 2) There's nothing in the page title that implies that it's an official resource 3) There's a big honking "NOT OFFICIAL" at the top of the page. This is the sort of thing where I think the wiki has value - unofficial information that is related to the core in some way. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
