This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: FAQ-O-Matic (Was: perl-5.6.0 ready for test! (IMPORTANT READ THIS MESSAGE ON MAINTAINER STATUS!))
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 01:03:54PM +0100, David Starks-Browning wrote:
>On Tuesday 22 Aug 00, Charles Wilson writes:
>> Chris Faylor wrote:
>> > Hmm. I like this! We could even set up FAQ-O-MATIC on the cygwin web pages.
>> I think FAQ-O-MATIC is a pretty good idea...for those who've never seen
>> a FAQ-O-MATIC, check out:
>I think this *could* be a good idea, if it's done properly. I would
>hate to see the Cygwin FAQ (or the Cygwin Apps FAQ) become what the
>gcc FAQ-O-Matic is now. In fact, I was at first opposed to the idea
>outright, because the gcc FOM is the only FOM I've encountered. But I
>see now that it merely serves as an excellent example of how *not* to
>Specifically, there must be *active* moderators doing a decent job. I
>don't want to see any of these, at least they shouldn't be there long:
>I don't want to see the FOM become a public Q&A forum, for people who
>can't be bothered to subscribe and/or mail to the right mailing list:
>There are lots of pros, of course. It would be great to be able to
>delegate moderator duties to others on a section-by-section basis,
>without having to establish cvs-write access at sources.redhat.com.
>(And without having to learn ssh + CVS. But everybody should learn
>that anyway, right?)
I agree that there must be active moderators. Maybe FOM isn't the ideal
solution. I can also easily see this becoming a Q&A forum, especially
given our disappointing experience with the 'todo' list.
Probably, we could get the same behavior by maintaining the documents in
CVS and giving specific people checkin privileges.
>Chris, is there an issue with resources? The server will have to do
>quite a bit more than spit out html. Will Red Hat, Inc. come after
>you if someone posts warez or DVD decryption source or ...
The machine is pretty beefy but the network connection isn't. In fact,
I've been contemplating elminating direct cygwin downloads from sources.
They are pretty much swamping the connection.
>I'm not looking forward to moving the existing Cygwin FAQ to FOM -- it
>would be a big job at first. But if it helps us deliver a better
>product, I'm all for it. (Maybe nobody was thinking about the
>existing FAQ, but if it works well for Cygwin Apps, then it's probably
>a good idea for all of it.)
I wasn't really thinking about the existing FAQ but it's a good point.
Consistency would be nice, especially if we have something that works.
We probably should look into some automated method for updating the FAQ
so that your changes don't require a manual "send mail to DJ" step.