[CentOS-docs] Opening of the wiki Part III(?) ...

Mon Nov 3 13:55:31 UTC 2008
Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de>

Ned Slider wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> Question: Do we need more than we have now (meaning: Do we need trac and
>> subversion or is this mailing list and the wiki enough for now)? We
>> cannot change the documentation we get from upstream and I don't
>> remember if we have any other documentation than is on the wiki at the
>> moment ...
> I don't personally see a need for anything else atm Ralph. Formalizing a  
> SIG could be as easy as nominating a dev team rep (you??), SIG lead and  
> membership, and putting it on the Wiki.
> I don't really understand why we mirror the RH documentation (manuals)  
> other than to be polite and conserve upstream's bandwidth? Obviously the  
> documentation retains RH's branding so presumably can be freely  
> redistributed but not changed so I'm wondering where's the added value?  
> Is it purely a courtesy or are there other reasons not to point directly  
> to upstream's manuals.

Courtesy and to have something within the centos space to point to.
Plus: Finding the manuals on upstream *all in one place* (like
clustermanagement, virtualization and so on) isn't that easy.

> One more thing - I'm wondering about the continued use of the "prominent  
> North American Enterprise Linux vendor" phrase that appears on the  
> website. Presumably this dates back to a time when Red Hat was less  
> receptive to CentOS but that has changed now? Is this something that  
> could/should be dropped now relations are friendlier?

Good question.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20081103/ed1407ba/attachment-0002.sig>