Proof-reading manuals (was Re: Rmail mbox-format branch)

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:

> Kim Storm wrote:
>
>    Compare these two schedules (if testing rmail adds 2 months delay):
>
>    Release:                When
>    21.4 without rmail      End 2004
>    22.1 with rmail         Mid 2005
>
>
>    Release:                When
>    21.4 with rmail         Mar 2005
>    22.1                    Nov 2005  (include holiday season)
>
> That first schedule is completely unrealistic.  There is no way that
> we will have all manuals checked, and all problems that come to light
> while checking the manuals fixed, before the end of the year.  At the
> present rate, even end March is rather optimistic.
>

Luc,

IMO you are doing a tremendous (and probably unprecedented) job at
proof-reading the manuals in minute details.  As a result you find
quite a number of problems, some of which are new, but others which I
bet have existed for several releases.

The question is what level of "correctness" and "completeness" we
require before we can make the 21.4 release.

Of course we should strive for 100%, but personally I would rather
make a release in 2004 with a few errors and omissions in the
documentation than wait several more months "just" because
proof-reading of the manuals is not complete or has revealed
inconsistencies.

That said, proof-reading the manuals definitely deserves more attention,
and I hope to have some time soon to help with the process.

To help organize the process, I have added a list of all the
relevant texi files in admin/FOR-RELEASE like this:

DONE	SECTION
---------------------------------------------
	man/abbrevs.texi

If you would update the list according to your current progress,
I hope others will jump in and start proof-reading some of
the "open" sections.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk