[CentOS-docs] status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation

Tue Mar 22 10:02:37 UTC 2016
François Cami <fcami at fedoraproject.org>

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org> wrote:
> On 22/03/16 10:21, François Cami wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant
>> <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for
>>>> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation)
>>>> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to
>>>> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS
>>>> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream documentation
>>>> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so
>>>> having link from that section to
>>>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/
>>>> Ideas, thoughts, comments ?
>>> +1 for that. it's long overdue.
>> -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support
>> statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much
>> like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users.
> Yes, but I was mentioning documentation about how to
> deploy/configure/maintain it, but you have a point : so the note would
> need to mention that everything regarding support channels and
> subscriptions should be considered "not applicable" to CentOS
> It's true that it can confuse potential users, but not having
> documentation at all doesn't help, and from what I see in #centos or
> forums, people are already pointed to the only existing doc, aka the
> upstream ones

My concern is not with users technically savvy enough to connect to
Freenode channels, because these sort-of know the difference between
community projects and enterprise, supported products.

With that said, provided we find a way to mention how to mention that
unambiguously, I'm ok with it.