CentOS docs - Mar 2016 - status of https://wiki.centos.org/Documentation

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do for
>> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation)
>> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to
>> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS
>> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream
documentation
>> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS and so
>> having link from that section to
>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/
>>
>> Ideas, thoughts, comments ?
>>
> +1 for that. it's long overdue.
-1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support
statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much
like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users.

Fran?ois

On 22/03/16 10:21, Fran?ois Cami wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant
> <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>> On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can do
for
>>> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation)
>>> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was just to
>>> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS
>>> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream
documentation
>>> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to CentOS
and so
>>> having link from that section to
>>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/
>>>
>>> Ideas, thoughts, comments ?
>>>
>> +1 for that. it's long overdue.
> 
> -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support
> statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very much
> like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users.
> 
> Fran?ois
Yes, but I was mentioning documentation about how to
deploy/configure/maintain it, but you have a point : so the note would
need to mention that everything regarding support channels and
subscriptions should be considered "not applicable" to CentOS
It's true that it can confuse potential users, but not having
documentation at all doesn't help, and from what I see in #centos or
forums, people are already pointed to the only existing doc, aka the
upstream ones

-- 
Fabian Arrotin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/attachments/20160322/7dcc690c/attachment-0002.sig>

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Fabian Arrotin <arrfab at centos.org>
wrote:
> On 22/03/16 10:21, Fran?ois Cami wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Manuel Wolfshant
>> <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>> On 03/22/2016 09:30 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I was having a look at that page, and was wondering what we can
do for
>>>> point #3 (Manuals and other documentation)
>>>> As we have no real content for CentOS 6 and 7 , my idea was
just to
>>>> explain in one line that (while technically not the CentOS
>>>> documentation) , almost all the points coming from uptream
documentation
>>>> ( - except for subscription manager - ) can be applied to
CentOS and so
>>>> having link from that section to
>>>> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/
>>>>
>>>> Ideas, thoughts, comments ?
>>>>
>>> +1 for that. it's long overdue.
>>
>> -1 from me, because access.redhat.com documentation contains support
>> statements which are irrelevant to the CentOS project. I'd very
much
>> like to avoid generating (more) confusion in potential users.
>
> Yes, but I was mentioning documentation about how to
> deploy/configure/maintain it, but you have a point : so the note would
> need to mention that everything regarding support channels and
> subscriptions should be considered "not applicable" to CentOS
> It's true that it can confuse potential users, but not having
> documentation at all doesn't help, and from what I see in #centos or
> forums, people are already pointed to the only existing doc, aka the
> upstream ones
My concern is not with users technically savvy enough to connect to
Freenode channels, because these sort-of know the difference between
community projects and enterprise, supported products.

With that said, provided we find a way to mention how to mention that
unambiguously, I'm ok with it.

Fran?ois