| From James Crook <crookj@...>
| Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:18:59 +0100
| Subject: Manual readiness and co-ordinating manual with code release.
> There is another beta release planned for June 11th.
> As we move towards 2.0 it's becoming more important that the manual is
> 'in sync' with the code that we release. That doesn't mean it has to be
> an exact mirror. For example, the manual may include images from Win7
> when a user is on OSX.
The "policy" on that (Beta or otherwise) used to be that we use Windows
images unless stated otherwise.
It now looks as if that might have relaxed a bit in so far as we are not
committed to "state otherwise". The Manual says (front page near the
bottom) "Many screenshots of Audacity in the Manual are of Microsoft
Windows 7® operating system; Since Audacity is cross-platform some
images might depict variances on other operating systems."
I'd prefer to have the stricter policy (for example, we could just say
"Mac OS X image" in the ALT text). I've had a number of complaints/
questions about the Mac images in:
> It may include documentation of plug-ins, like mod-script pipe, that are
> not distributed with Audacity as standard.
> However, for 2.0 we don't want to be missing out on features that are
> present, and things like the duplicate pages which are OK in a beta
> would not be at all acceptable in a 2.0 release.
> For the release process we need someone who has a clear picture of the
> status of the manual, who knows what is OK and what isn't, and who can
> tell the release manager "It is good to go" or "We can't release this".
> I would like it to be one person we can go to rather than the RM needing
> to make a decision based on what they here from different people. If we
> prepare for this in advance, that should be possible. This makes life
> much easier for the RM. They can run through a checklist:
> - No known P1's (beta) or No known P2's (stable)?
> - Builders for each platform?
> - Manual ready?
> - Someone ready to do release notes when the time comes?
> ...OK, we're ready to go.
> So I am looking for someone who is active in writing amongst the manual
> writers who is happy to be the 'go to' person. I'm not closely enough
> involved in the manual to know in detail what is ready and what isn't.
> Anyway, is there someone, or are there people, who would like to take
> responsibility for saying whether the manual is ready? If several
> people step forward we'll choose one. For the time being we're just
> talking about for 1.3.14, but if 1.3.14 is actually a 2.0 candidate, it
> would also be for 2.0 release too.
I think historically this person would be me, hence I posited the
view that the 1.3.13 rc3 Manual was only borderline acceptable
from purely the perspective of the Manual. It was much more
flawed than the last few Beta Manuals, so was a "regression"
(if we had bugs for the Manual). Of course, the Manual is only one
factor for RM to consider, and the last few Manuals were of a very
high state of completion.
I am happy to volunteer if the other Manual writers are happy it
should be me. My only reservation is that if it's wanted I should
concentrate more on bugs, my following the Manual will be more
difficult than it used to be. Maybe if we discriminated more on the
Manual [[ToDo]]'s , even rated them, it would be easier for someone
to decide if the Manual was of acceptable quality.
In any case I anticipate far fewer issues with having the Manual
ready for release in future, now we've accepted that the online
version has to keep up with the Nightly Builds.