| suggestion for quakity assurance of documentation | kai....@gmail.com | 04/04/18 01:46 | greetings! while taking first steps with new qubes 4.0, i find that some of the great documentation articles in qubes-os.org so my suggestion is to add a creation/last updated date to the pages and/or to add an information, to which versions of qubes the article applies, e.g. created for version 3.2, updated/reviewed for usage with 4.0. any other/better solution would be also welcome, of course... thank you and all the best |
| Re: [qubes-users] suggestion for quakity assurance of documentation | Ivan Mitev | 06/04/18 01:46 | hey,
the problem is that things like a trivial typo fix would automatically update the 'last updated' tag and make people think that the doc is up to date for the last qubes release. alternatively, the 'last updated' tag could be updated manually when there are significant changes, but it's error-prone. the consensus seems to be to fix the current documentation with "R3.2", "R4.0" tags where appropriate. One of the problems is that the core devs had too much on their plate with the recent 4.0 release so the documentation is a bit lagging. here are some related issues: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/3495 https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/3629 btw if you don't have time to contribute/fix the documentation, listing the problems you saw in the docs would be helpful (either post them here or send me an email). ivan |
| Re: [qubes-users] suggestion for quakity assurance of documentation | sevas | 07/04/18 19:19 | where is your email? I will email you. I too have found many problems. |
| Re: [qubes-users] suggestion for quakity assurance of documentation | trueriver | 22/04/18 03:42 | On Friday, 6 April 2018 09:46:00 UTC+1, Ivan Mitev wrote: > ...
The solution used on a number of wikis is to supply a checkbox "This is a trivial update" and a text box to describe the purpose of the update. Edits will not be accepted where both the checkbox and the purpose are blank. This eliminates most of those kind of errors. (Nothing is perfect of course) That would be my preferred solution, FWIW |
| Re: suggestion for quakity assurance of documentation | trueriver | 22/04/18 05:30 | btw: I assume the apparent typo in the topic title is deliberate ;) |