Re: [Gnumed-devel] GnuMed documentation (Was: GNUmed 1.1.9 Maintenance Release)

[Andreas Tille]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 07:44:48AM +0100, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> You have a point here with regards to Debian users. Here are some figures for 
> the Ubuntu users
> 
> gnumed-doc                      2485    28  2180    21   256 (Debian-med 
> Packaging Team)   
> 
> So now there are 35 users to ask :-) and the ones who download from the 
> Ubuntu 
> PPA which are not counted (milions most likely ...)

I think millions is a quite safe estimation probably a lower bondary. :-)
  
> >    1. Dropping gnumed-doc (at least for the next couple of releases -
> >       it would make extra manual work for ftpmaster to remove a package
> >       just to add it again next week or so).
> 
> I don't object to dropping it but one could say. If noone is looking at it 
> anyway why drop it. Instead it is help for this one person who does not have 
> any other means to access the docs (e.g.) wiki. This person might think. 
> Shoot 
> this is ugly and broken but it is there. Plus I am going to fix it anyhow. It 
> has been like this for the last couple of releases. I fail to see why we 
> would 
> start seeing this as a roadblock all of a sudden.

Well, that's wrong.  I stumbled upon the documentation *because* it has
changed!  It was OK in gnumed-doc_1.1.7-1_all.deb.  There were *no*
images at all and *all* links worked.  I stumbled upon the change
because my build system did not worked any more because file locations
had changed.  So if you simply and straight would do the very same as in
version 1.1.7 all problems are vanished.  But *you* did changed
something in the first place and the change was definitely no feature
and I'm not willing to support this broken doc in Debian.
 
> >    2. Waiting for the next release(s) until you fixed the docu to an
> >       acceptable state (regarding a good user experience).
> > 
> You decide. I will make sure the links work and the plain skin is used. As 
> soon as this is in place it is considered not to get any better from my point 
> of view.

Just make it as it was.  This is what Joey Purehardwareuser want's on
his computer and please also spare him this stupid fancy JavaScripting
stuff at bottom right.  You are draining the offline user into trouble.
Just use the old method you used last year and everything will be fine.

Kind regards

        Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de