Hi Docs Team,
During the Fedora 9 release Paul helped me craft a schedule of docs tasks which we published here: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-9/f-9-docs-tasks.html
For the Fedora 10 release I re-worked the underlying TaskJuggler file to optimize reporting and the ability to allocate resources in the future. As a result I've lost some of the dependencies that were built in and am having a hard time reconnecting them. Also as I look at some of the tasks I'm wondering if they still apply or not.
I'd love your help reviewing the schedule here: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-10/f-10-docs-tasks.html
and telling me:
1) Which tasks no longer apply and should be removed 2) New tasks which should be added 3) Existing tasks that are wrong --please provide the task that comes before and after along with the correct dates so I can build the right dependency logic.
Thanks, John
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 18:13 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Hi Docs Team,
Hi John,
Thanks for bringing this up. :)
During the Fedora 9 release Paul helped me craft a schedule of docs tasks which we published here: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-9/f-9-docs-tasks.html
For the Fedora 10 release I re-worked the underlying TaskJuggler file to optimize reporting and the ability to allocate resources in the future. As a result I've lost some of the dependencies that were built in and am having a hard time reconnecting them. Also as I look at some of the tasks I'm wondering if they still apply or not.
I'd love your help reviewing the schedule here: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-10/f-10-docs-tasks.html
and telling me:
- Which tasks no longer apply and should be removed
- New tasks which should be added
- Existing tasks that are wrong --please provide the task that comes before and after along with the
correct dates so I can build the right dependency logic.
Got it, looks like we need to do some bumps based on the new Beta freeze of 09 Sep. I'll attempt to provide new dates as well.
thx - Karsten
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 18:13 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Hi Docs Team,
For the Fedora 10 release I re-worked the underlying TaskJuggler file to optimize reporting and the ability to allocate resources in the future. As a result I've lost some of the dependencies that were built in and am having a hard time reconnecting them. Also as I look at some of the tasks I'm wondering if they still apply or not.
I was looking for the TaskJuggler source earlier, but I went ahead and used plain ol' text:
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org/Fedora-Docs/F10-docs-schedule-notes.txt
I'd love your help reviewing the schedule here: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-10/f-10-docs-tasks.html
Thanks again, this needed doing. :)
and telling me:
- Which tasks no longer apply and should be removed
- New tasks which should be added
- Existing tasks that are wrong --please provide the task that comes before and after along with the
correct dates so I can build the right dependency logic.
The highlights of what is different:
* There is no building of fedora-release-notes RPM for Beta, that is saved for the PR * So L10n is bumped to PR * Only Wiki one-page is done for Beta * Added details about putting up the CMS ** Note aggressive schedule that has not been presented to Websites; may change :) * There is a zero-day (literally) update of docs.fp.o that was missing; I put it in explicitly, including a vacuum of Beats * The RC schedule is mainly unchanged * Beta and PR are mainly changed :)
cheers - Karsten
Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 18:13 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Hi Docs Team,
For the Fedora 10 release I re-worked the underlying TaskJuggler file to optimize reporting and the ability to allocate resources in the future. As a result I've lost some of the dependencies that were built in and am having a hard time reconnecting them. Also as I look at some of the tasks I'm wondering if they still apply or not.
I was looking for the TaskJuggler source earlier, but I went ahead and used plain ol' text:
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org/Fedora-Docs/F10-docs-schedule-notes.txt
This is perfect! I can very easily update the TJ file using this as a clear guide.
Did you have any comments on the tasks prior to Beta? I'd like to get those right too so that building F11 is on auto-pilot :)
John
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:00 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 18:13 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Hi Docs Team,
For the Fedora 10 release I re-worked the underlying TaskJuggler file to optimize reporting and the ability to allocate resources in the future. As a result I've lost some of the dependencies that were built in and am having a hard time reconnecting them. Also as I look at some of the tasks I'm wondering if they still apply or not.
I was looking for the TaskJuggler source earlier, but I went ahead and used plain ol' text:
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org/Fedora-Docs/F10-docs-schedule-notes.txt
This is perfect! I can very easily update the TJ file using this as a clear guide.
Did you have any comments on the tasks prior to Beta? I'd like to get those right too so that building F11 is on auto-pilot :)
Only that we might want the wording to more closely match that in the Beta, with specific mention of the wiki only publishing.
I updated this today (without Alpha) and tweaked the wording somewhat, such as clarifying "combing":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Schedule/10
- Karsten
Karsten 'quaid' Wade said the following on 09/03/2008 06:02 PM Pacific Time:
On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 16:00 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
Did you have any comments on the tasks prior to Beta? I'd like to get those right too so that building F11 is on auto-pilot :)
Only that we might want the wording to more closely match that in the Beta, with specific mention of the wiki only publishing.
I updated this today (without Alpha) and tweaked the wording somewhat, such as clarifying "combing":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Schedule/10
- Karsten
Here is the latest revision: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-10/f-10-docs-tasks.html
It does not reflect the proposed slip of beta and feature freeze by two days.
Let me know if you see anything else that should be fixed. Thanks for helping me get this tuned up.
John
John Poelstra <poelstra <at> redhat.com> writes:
Did you have any comments on the tasks prior to Beta? I'd like to get those right too so that building F11 is on auto-pilot :)
Coming from a developer / beat writer standpoint here: One thing which should be clearer is when exactly the beats stop targeting Fn release note errata and start targeting Fn+1 (currently n=9). Because we want to make sure our changes for Fn+1 end up in the Fn+1 release notes, but we don't want them in the Fn release note errata! And if the point where we're targeting F10 already happened, then can the wiki please be fixed not to refer to F9 all over the Docs/Beats front page? This is something I already complained about in the F9 cycle.
Another thing I wonder is: are the one-page release notes for the alpha and beta releases really a good idea? Because the thing is, they're intended to save us work so we can get the first release notes done more quickly, but in practice they're actually extra work, because we have to write everything twice, once in a short form for the one-page notes and once in a detailed form in the beats. For some features (like KDE 4.0 was in F9), there's also no way to fit in all the important stuff into the one page (or else more than half of it would have been KDE stuff ;-) ). I'd rather have just written the full beats right away (but couldn't because they were still targeting F8 errata, and they wouldn't have been used anyway).
Kevin Kofler
Kevin Kofler said the following on 09/18/2008 11:28 AM Pacific Time:
John Poelstra <poelstra <at> redhat.com> writes:
Did you have any comments on the tasks prior to Beta? I'd like to get those right too so that building F11 is on auto-pilot :)
Coming from a developer / beat writer standpoint here: One thing which should be clearer is when exactly the beats stop targeting Fn release note errata and start targeting Fn+1 (currently n=9). Because we want to make sure our changes for Fn+1 end up in the Fn+1 release notes, but we don't want them in the Fn release note errata! And if the point where we're targeting F10 already happened, then can the wiki please be fixed not to refer to F9 all over the Docs/Beats front page? This is something I already complained about in the F9 cycle.
I'm all ears. If someone can provide the new dates and idea behind them (what they are based on) I can add them.
One of these views might provide helpful perspective. http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-10/f-10-docs-tasks.html http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-10/f-10-releng-tasks.html
John
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 18:28 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
John Poelstra <poelstra <at> redhat.com> writes:
Did you have any comments on the tasks prior to Beta? I'd like to get those right too so that building F11 is on auto-pilot :)
Coming from a developer / beat writer standpoint here: One thing which should be clearer is when exactly the beats stop targeting Fn release note errata and start targeting Fn+1 (currently n=9). Because we want to make sure our changes for Fn+1 end up in the Fn+1 release notes, but we don't want them in the Fn release note errata! And if the point where we're targeting F10 already happened, then can the wiki please be fixed not to refer to F9 all over the Docs/Beats front page? This is something I already complained about in the F9 cycle.
Where does it refer to F9? That is, is it just content that needs updating, or is it some kind of direction about what version the work refers to?
Old content in various beats may hang around in Docs/Beats/ until the clean-up for the Preview Release. Sub-optimal, yes.
Sorry it's unclear when we stop using Docs/Beats for errata. The idea is, once we begin working on the release notes for the next release in any fashion, the content is clearly rolling over to Fn+1. There definitely needs to be a clear date for when that happens.
Another thing I wonder is: are the one-page release notes for the alpha and beta releases really a good idea? Because the thing is, they're intended to save us work so we can get the first release notes done more quickly, but in practice they're actually extra work, because we have to write everything twice, once in a short form for the one-page notes and once in a detailed form in the beats. For some features (like KDE 4.0 was in F9), there's also no way to fit in all the important stuff into the one page (or else more than half of it would have been KDE stuff ;-) ). I'd rather have just written the full beats right away (but couldn't because they were still targeting F8 errata, and they wouldn't have been used anyway).
"It depends."
In your case, I'd recommend putting in a pointer:
"KDE is hugely different. For more information, refer to the in-progress full release notes page:
It's an evolving process, it definitely can use improvements. However, it is much better than doing multiple conversions to XML or trying to have all of the Docs/Beats in viewable shape by Alpha.
- Karsten
-
John Poelstra -
Karsten Wade -
Kevin Kofler