cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/5-roadmap article.sgml
Scott Long
scottl at samsco.org
Mon Sep 17 16:16:23 PDT 2007
Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On 2007-09-18 00:12, Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri <almarrie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/18/07, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> Giorgos Keramidas escribi??:
>>>>> keramida 2007-09-17 21:02:43 UTC
>>>>>
>>>>> FreeBSD doc repository
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified files:
>>>>> en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/5-roadmap article.sgml
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> Avoid using "It was", but use a more explicit reference to the
>>>>> version-guide article in the abstract of 5-roadmap. This way
>>>>> the text is a bit less confusing.
>>>> Shouldn't this be nuked? I remember it came to the topic some time ago,
>>>> but we won't have
>>>> any new releases from 5.X any more and it has only a historical
>>>> significance.
>>> When you go on and keep reading, and follow the links you feel the 5.x
>>> task isn't completed yet, and I feel it's misleading, I would suggest
>>> you make docs for FreeBSD 7.x Road Map or even 8.x
>> That's odd. After reading this in the current abstract:
>>
>> <para> This document is now mostly of historical value. It
>> presented a roadmap for the development of &os;'s &t.releng.5;
>> branch. It was originally written in February 2003 (between
>> the 5.0 and 5.1 releases), and was intended to provide a plan
>> for making the &t.releng.5; branch <quote>stable</quote>, both
>> in terms of code quality and finalization of various
>> APIs/ABIs. For a different perspective, the article
>> <ulink url="&url.articles.version-guide;">
>> <quote>Choosing the &os; Version That Is Right For You</quote>
>> </ulink>
>> may be of interest. The version-guide article was written in August
>> 2005 (two and a half years later), and it contains a section
>> discussing how these plans and events actually unfolded, as well as
>> some lessons learned.</para>
>>
>> it was obvious to me that the article is *not* describing the current
>> state of affairs. Any suggestions about improving the text to make it
>> less confusing for people who just happen to stumble upon it now, are
>> very welcome :)
>
> I think if you change the title itself it will be good idea.
>
> The Road Map for 5-STABLE to The Road Map for 5-STABLE ( historical value )
>
AS the author of this blasted document, I'll ask that 1) you stop
arguing about nit-picky points about it, 2) don't change the title, and
3) stop attaching so much significance to it.
Thanks =-)
Scott
More information about the cvs-doc
mailing list