discuss: RPM Builder's Tricks and Traps HOWTO
Subject:
Re: RPM Builder's Tricks and Traps HOWTO
From:
Tor Slettnes ####@####.####
Date:
9 Sep 2004 07:05:26 -0000
Message-Id: <8E048685-022E-11D9-A555-00039381C3A4@slett.net>
On Sep 8, 2004, at 16:45, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I did these things.
>
>> - You send it to ####@####.#### for feedback.
>> It will then be listed in the "Documents in Progress" section
>
> At no point was I told about this step.
Nor was I. (And as a result, I skipped it).
This step is not mandatory; it may be useful if you want early feedback
though.
>> - Once it is completed, and has had some peer review, you
>> send it to ####@####.#### saying that it is ready
>> for final reviews.
>>
>> - A review coordinator (Emma or Tabatha) will locate and assign
>> people to perform the following reviews in order:
>> Technical Accuracy Review
>> Language Review
>> Markup/Metadata Review
>
> In this case, the reviews happened before any coordinator stepped in.
> Several listmembers suggested minor corrections and improvements, which
> I duly incorporated.
So did I. I announced my recent "Spam Filtering for Mail Exchangers"
HOWTO to various lists asking for feedback, and got lots of useful
information, additions, corrections, etc.
As far as TLDP goes, though, it seems that the document must undergo
(at least) three formal reviews managed by the review coordinator.
While other reviews are useful for the general quality of the document,
they do not directly address the TLDP review process. (My
interpretation).
(I am less clear about how to perform updates to a document that has
already been accepted).
> I agree. However, the process has to be *documented*, and it has to
> *work* (that is, converge to a resolution within a reasonable time).
> If it's either not documented, or doesn't work, it will have exempted
> itself from me.
Having just completed my first HOWTO, I think the process worked
relatively well, as documented in the TLDP author guide (sections 6.4
and 6.5). A bit slow, mainly due to the number of reviews that have to
happen in sequence; and the fact that I did trip up on some of the
language in this guide, mainly due to my own inability to read. It
said:
"When you feel your document is finished, email a copy to the submit
mailing list."
I read:
"When you feel your document is finished, submit a copy to the
[discuss] mailing list."
That said, it worked as advertised.
> I have never seen these steps listed before. I think that may indicate
> a problem in the LDP's process, or at least in the way it's explained
> to
> would-be authors.
Aside from the step of sending a preliminary copy to the "submit"
mailing list to be listed on the "In Progress" section (this step is
entirely optional), I found all of these steps in the author guide.
-tor
