[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v3] gemini: Support sysupgrade on DIR-685

[Alberto Bursi]

On 21/05/19 13:10, Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Alberto Bursi <bobafetthotmail at gmail.com> [2019-05-21 11:44:37]:
>
>> On 20/05/19 23:48, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:56 PM Petr Štetiar <ynezz at true.cz> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can start while I still have it in fresh memory and you can chime
>>> in on how you want people to do generic checksum etc.
>> You don't need to worry too much about formatting and making it look cool,
> It's not about the formatting, it's about the content. How could I (or possibly
> someone else) chime in and improve the docs (easily)?


As I said in the mail, he should write it in the wiki as a stopgap measure,

it's better to have it in the wiki with the limitations we all know,

instead of waiting for a perfect solution that may

or may not happen later.


As for the permanent place for development/technical documentation,

it's up to you members and core contributors to decide

where and how to write it down.

The only thing I care about is that someone must be enforcing

to write technical/development docs somewhere.


The only thing that we MUST use a wiki for is for tutorials

(installation and configuration), device data, and other

user-contributed documentation, as users don't

know nor need to learn git or Github just to

write down a tutorial and upload a few

screenshots of a board.


> BTW are we going to add links to the wiki into the code?

Would you add paths to the internal docs in the code?


I personally don't see why you want it. Finding the document about

a specific OpenWrt component isn't terribly hard even without a direct link.


But still, I'm neutral on this too. You choose what you think is best.

I'm not a dev, I don't know what is most suited for your workflow.


>> I'm afraid that waiting for people to decide where they want to bikeshed the
>> developer docs will end nowhere, just like it did in the past.
> Well, the difference is, that I'm willing to help make it happen this time, if
> there's still some interest around this topic. It simply makes sense to me.
>
> Actually I'm not saying, that I'm going to prepare patches which would add
> this feature to the tree, but I'm willing help with testing and giving it my
> +1 in a potential vote.


This is why I'm afraid this isn't going to end anywhere.

Actually writing documentation requires time and effort,

and I fully understand that developers don't like to be using

their time to write docs. Especially so in their free time.


Just ACKing and reviewing isn't enough to make this happen.


Maybe have the leg work of this documentation work done by an intern

in a Google Summer of Code or something.


>
> I've abused this thread in order to spark exactly this discussion and to see
> if there's some interest in potentialy moving forward with this. It will serve
> also as a small reminder to me, that this might be next topic I should bring
> to to the discussion on our meeting in June.


Please talk with the other members about this point, as it's important

and not addressed properly by the current wiki setup.


As I also said above, I'm available to rework or add formatting or do other

editorial work to make it look good and have a coherent structure,

wherever you decide to place it.

You just need someone to write correct raw information.


-Alberto


_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel