Confirming that no one else is working on Guide Documentation, Chapter 3

[Tom Bullock]

On 7/23/2010 5:47 PM, Tommy Trussell wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Tom Bullock<tbullock at nd.edu>  wrote:
>>   Is anyone else working on Chapter 3?  If so, I would like to coordinate
>> with that person.  If not, can you all tell me to proceed with sending in a
>> patch?
>>
>> Assuming you did tell me to proceed, another question.  When making changes
>> to the documentation, what is the method to let all translators know so that
>> they can add the changes to their "to-do" list for their language versions
>> of the documentation?
> I am not working on that section
Should I infer you are working on another part of the documentation?
> and I don't know the "official
> answers,"
Answers from whom can be taken as "official"?  a number of developers 
have stated they are currently on vacation.
>   but when you learn them (or create them?) you might also
> update the wiki to reflect the current process:
> http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_Guide
Thank you for pointing out these two wiki pages to me.  You are the 
first to bring this one and the one below to my attention.
> I found that page by looking at the "all pages" page in the wiki.
What is the technique that you used to find "all pages" in the wiki?  I 
assume "all" means gnucash pages.
>   I
> also discovered that in 2006 someone used the wiki to present/edit the
> parts of the Concept Guide (and presumably started the page above,
> too). See http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Concept_Guide_draft/Overview
> and the other linked text.
>
> The wiki might be a convenient way to get revision suggestions and
> feedback,
I think your suggestion is appropriate.  There should be a place and 
method to funnel all input and the statement of problems needs to stay 
separated from the documentation that explains the use of the system, at 
the very minimum to avoid confusion and support clarity.
> especially if you use an automated tool to convert the
> sources between Docbook and wiki. I gather there are several
I do appreciate your ideas and could use the help of your naming these 
automated tools that convert sources between DocBook and wiki.  Once 
having the name I expect to be able to google their sites and learn more.
> but I
> can't immediately tell which were used in 2006... and depending on the
> scripts the diffs back to the existing docbook source might be a
> nightmare.
Makes sense.  I think we should start with the present state and 
condition of the documentation and move forward as more becomes known 
about what works and what could be expanded upon.  Most of that learning 
would be mine or any that join in the effort until a current statement 
of present needs is made.  Such a statement would of course need to be 
submitted to the developers for their reflection and amendment.

Tom