Wiki Landing Page

[David T.]

Don,

> On May 29, 2017, at 10:24 PM, doncram <doncram at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> About the suggested content now at http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/GnuCash/sandbox <http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/GnuCash/sandbox>, one objection that I have is that it refers readers to a Documentation page at the main gnucash.org <http://gnucash.org/> website which provides nothing for them (it only contains links to the Help manual and the Tutorial and Concept Guide, and no other documentation). Specifically, the current content includes:
> 
> "For the latest documentation (i.e., unstable releases of the documentation), or to get documentation for other languages or earlier releases, see the [http://www.gnucash.org/docs.phtml <http://www.gnucash.org/docs.phtml> Documentation] page on the GnuCash.org website."
> 
> It seems like a false statement, that a reader could get latest documentation or anything else there.  The content already does link to versions of the Help manual and the Tutorial and Concept Guide.  Are you suggesting those are not the latest versions?  Should the content clarify what versions they are?   

I agree with John’s comments about the utility of the main website documentation page. 

Moreover, the wiki links to the Help and Guide are to the most recent *stable* release of the documentation. As you may know, the documentation uses the same bug management process and version control to manage the docs. Changes that are accepted in the docs but not yet published in the official release (the “Nightly Documentation Builds”) may describe features that have not been implemented in the current release. This parallels the idea of the program’s nightly builds. They are called “unstable” for a reason, and this term is used in this project and in others to denote this. I have modified the sentence a little to bring this out a little more, but I do believe that it is clear what is on the web page. 

David

> 
> I am sort of afraid it may be impossible to come to any agreement about any wording, because there are too many people involved (and I guess I am now part of the problem).  I do hope that I am helping by suggesting that a clear proposal needs to be made by a complete new version at the sandbox.  The version there is deficient in my view in this one small way, at least.  --Don
>