Re: build system work

[Carl Sorensen]

On 3/4/11 1:05 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:38:19AM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> On 3/4/11 11:09 AM, "Colin Campbell" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11-03-04 10:54 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/11 10:31 AM, "Colin Campbell"<address@hidden>  wrote:
>>>> 
> 
> [subject: wiki or not?]
> 
>>>>> I'm the noob here, so I'll defer to greater wisdom.
> 
> Ok, for the record: we're still gathering opinions about wiki vs.
> CG.  The most important opinions come from the people offering to
> actually do the work, of course.  So far, that means Colin and
> Phil.
> 
>>>> My preference would be to have an issue on google code, with a priority of
>>>> low, under which one-time users could post their experiences.
> 
> Please no.  We'll be gathering approximately 15 pdf-pages of docs;
> having that amount of info as a series of comments on google code
> wouldn't work.
> 
> (unless I'm misunderstanding this comment...?)

I think you're misunderstanding this comment.  Absolutely we should not have
a google code issue for the main discussion of the new CG content.  However,
if there were somebody who had a problem with the build system (not somebody
who was trying to fix it), they'd have a place to make a comment.  That way
we would capture their input without them having to patch the CG.
> 
>> The proposal was to start by documenting what the build system
>> does.  And he estimated that the documentation process would
>> take 50 hours of development time.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> But I don't think that project needs any visibility on frogs --
>> it's way over the head of frogs.  Anybody who is contributing to
>> build system revision is clearly a developer, IMO.
> 
> Yes and no.  The only two volunteers so far clearly *are* Frogs.

But by the time they are ready to *fix* the build system, they won't be,
because they will have spent enough time working on the documentation of the
build system they'll be experts, albeit in one area of contribution.  But
many of us are experts in only one or two areas of contribution.

Thanks,

Carl