Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
After Jeremy raised the question about which package to use for the
Ubuntu documentation, we have had some discussion off-list, which ended
up in <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1686267>. So I'd say that the working
hypothesis, at least for now, is that we'll keep ubuntu-docs.

Now, the name of the package is not really the most important aspect.
But the ubuntu-docs Bazaar branch is a handy tool, where all the docs
pages reside, and from which we up to now have built both the
ubuntu-docs package which is installed locally and the HTML version
which is published at help.ubuntu.com. My hope is that we won't
unnecessarily change that workflow.

So, what will be new? Most of the ubuntu-docs pages already origin from
GNOME Help. This will obviously be even more true in Ubuntu 17.10, and
the need for Ubuntu specific customization will be significantly
reduced. The Unity specific pages will simply be dropped.

My idea is to fork the applicable version of the GNOME Help .page files,
and as a first step replace the current pages in ubuntu-docs with the
GNOME Help pages. That will give us this initial structure:

https://help.gnome.org/users/gnome-help/3.24/

Then we should identify which of the current Ubuntu specific pages that
make sense to keep, and make the necessary changes to integrate those
pages into the structure.

Since the upstream GNOME Help pages will make up most of ubuntu-docs,
and the GNOME desktop environment tend to change faster than what has
been the case with Unity 7 in the past few cycles, it's important that
we don't make it difficult to update to new page versions by forking
again. This means that we should avoid to make Ubuntu adjustments to the
GNOME pages. Instead, if we identify room for improvements, we should at
first hand work with the GNOME folks and propose upstream changes.

As regards translations, at this time I think it makes sense to keep the
Launchpad interface (the ubuntu-help translation domain). The GNOME Help
pages have been translated upstream, and my intention is to try to
somehow import those translations to Launchpad, so the translators don't
need to redo the work. This will probably need some manual fiddling -
can't tell exactly how at the moment.

What do you all think? Does this sound as a sensible synopsis of a road map?

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Alberto Salvia Novella
Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
> What do you all think?

Yes, we shall integrate improvements in GNOME as far as possible.




--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Hannie Dumoleyn
In reply to this post by Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Hello Gunnar,
Before I give any comment, I will begin by diving into this matter. I
have just installed Ubuntu Gnome Zesty in VirtualBox, so I can clearly
see the differences with Unity 7.
Your proposal is more of a technical thing. I have no experience with
forking, packaging, structure, mallard etc. I have to read the
ubuntu-docs documentation to get acquainted with it (Time, or lack of it
:)). I will also have a close look at bugs 1686726 (thanks Jeremy) and
1686267. It is a bit of abacadabra for me at this moment ):

I do have experience with translations (pot and po) and merging files,
though. As a translator for Gnome I am currently working on the
gnome-user-docs [1]. As you can see, my collegue first merged
ubuntu-help with gnome-help (samengevoegd=merged).

I was just wondering, if Ubuntu is going to use the Gnome environment,
wouldn't the gnome-help be sufficient?

[1] https://l10n.gnome.org/vertimus/gnome-user-docs/master/gnome-help/nl

Hannie

Op 27-04-17 om 16:45 schreef Gunnar Hjalmarsson:

> After Jeremy raised the question about which package to use for the
> Ubuntu documentation, we have had some discussion off-list, which
> ended up in <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1686267>. So I'd say that the
> working hypothesis, at least for now, is that we'll keep ubuntu-docs.
>
> Now, the name of the package is not really the most important aspect.
> But the ubuntu-docs Bazaar branch is a handy tool, where all the docs
> pages reside, and from which we up to now have built both the
> ubuntu-docs package which is installed locally and the HTML version
> which is published at help.ubuntu.com. My hope is that we won't
> unnecessarily change that workflow.
>
> So, what will be new? Most of the ubuntu-docs pages already origin
> from GNOME Help. This will obviously be even more true in Ubuntu
> 17.10, and the need for Ubuntu specific customization will be
> significantly reduced. The Unity specific pages will simply be dropped.
>
> My idea is to fork the applicable version of the GNOME Help .page
> files, and as a first step replace the current pages in ubuntu-docs
> with the GNOME Help pages. That will give us this initial structure:
>
> https://help.gnome.org/users/gnome-help/3.24/
>
> Then we should identify which of the current Ubuntu specific pages
> that make sense to keep, and make the necessary changes to integrate
> those pages into the structure.
>
> Since the upstream GNOME Help pages will make up most of ubuntu-docs,
> and the GNOME desktop environment tend to change faster than what has
> been the case with Unity 7 in the past few cycles, it's important that
> we don't make it difficult to update to new page versions by forking
> again. This means that we should avoid to make Ubuntu adjustments to
> the GNOME pages. Instead, if we identify room for improvements, we
> should at first hand work with the GNOME folks and propose upstream
> changes.
>
> As regards translations, at this time I think it makes sense to keep
> the Launchpad interface (the ubuntu-help translation domain). The
> GNOME Help pages have been translated upstream, and my intention is to
> try to somehow import those translations to Launchpad, so the
> translators don't need to redo the work. This will probably need some
> manual fiddling - can't tell exactly how at the moment.
>
> What do you all think? Does this sound as a sensible synopsis of a
> road map?
>


--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Doug Smythies
In reply to this post by Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Hi Gunnar,

Thanks for your proposed road map.

On 2017.04.27 07:46 Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:

> After Jeremy raised the question about which package to use for the
> Ubuntu documentation, we have had some discussion off-list, which ended
> up in <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1686267>.

I saw all the bug report traffic.

> So I'd say that the working
>hypothesis, at least for now, is that we'll keep ubuntu-docs.

I'm not entirely sure why.
To avoid duplicating effort, why not just make a link to Gnome docs
in the help.ubuntu.com 17.10 desktop help spot.
There was talk about branding and such, but why bother?

> Now, the name of the package is not really the most important aspect.
> But the ubuntu-docs Bazaar branch is a handy tool, where all the docs
> pages reside, and from which we up to now have built both the
> ubuntu-docs package which is installed locally and the HTML version
> which is published at help.ubuntu.com. My hope is that we won't
> unnecessarily change that workflow.

Why have any workflow at all? Why not just use the Gnome stuff as is.

> So, what will be new? Most of the ubuntu-docs pages already origin from
> GNOME Help. This will obviously be even more true in Ubuntu 17.10, and
> the need for Ubuntu specific customization will be significantly
> reduced.

Why not set the objective of eliminated entirely rather than "reduced".

> The Unity specific pages will simply be dropped.
>
> My idea is to fork the applicable version of the GNOME Help .page files,
> and as a first step replace the current pages in ubuntu-docs with the
> GNOME Help pages. That will give us this initial structure:
>
> https://help.gnome.org/users/gnome-help/3.24/
>
> Then we should identify which of the current Ubuntu specific pages that
> make sense to keep, and make the necessary changes to integrate those
> pages into the structure.
>
> Since the upstream GNOME Help pages will make up most of ubuntu-docs,
> and the GNOME desktop environment tend to change faster than what has
> been the case with Unity 7 in the past few cycles, it's important that
> we don't make it difficult to update to new page versions by forking
> again. This means that we should avoid to make Ubuntu adjustments to the
> GNOME pages. Instead, if we identify room for improvements, we should at
> first hand work with the GNOME folks and propose upstream changes.

Agree.

> As regards translations, at this time I think it makes sense to keep the
> Launchpad interface (the ubuntu-help translation domain). The GNOME Help
> pages have been translated upstream, and my intention is to try to
> somehow import those translations to Launchpad, so the translators don't
> need to redo the work. This will probably need some manual fiddling -
> can't tell exactly how at the moment.

Again, why bother? Why not just use their stuff as is.

> What do you all think? Does this sound as a sensible synopsis of a road map?



--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
On 2017-04-28 16:52, Doug Smythies wrote:
> Hi Gunnar,
>
> Thanks for your proposed road map.

Thanks for challenging it. ;)

> On 2017.04.27 07:46 Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>> So I'd say that the working hypothesis, at least for now, is that
>> we'll keep ubuntu-docs.
>
> I'm not entirely sure why.
> To avoid duplicating effort, why not just make a link to Gnome docs
> in the help.ubuntu.com 17.10 desktop help spot.
> There was talk about branding and such, but why bother?

Hannie asked approximately the same question.

There is apparently no right or wrong way to look at this. Basically
it's all about the level of ambition with the Ubuntu desktop docs.

Yes, coming Ubuntu will be based on the GNOME desktop environment. But
the Ubuntu desktop distribution will still not be exactly equivalent to
the standard GNOME desktop, and even if we don't know yet how they will
differ, my idea is to keep a door open for customizing the desktop guide
to reflect the Ubuntu desktop distribution.

Some things which come to mind (probably since I have been personally
involved in those areas) are:

* The Ubuntu guide has a section about installing software from the
Ubuntu archive, PPAs and other repositories. I think that section will
be motivated also going forward.

* Ubuntu makes the Adobe Flash plugins conveniently available in the
archive, and one of the pages describes that (unlike the GNOME equivalent).

* Ubuntu makes it easy to use other advanced input methods but IBus, and
it's briefly explained in the desktop guide. GNOME does intentionally
not do so.

* If Ubuntu keeps using LightDM (instead of GDM), we'll keep having a
guest session feature, which is currently described briefly in the docs.

Those are some offhand items; there is most certainly more.

I'm volunteering to do a quick-and-dirty initial setup along the lines
described in my previous message. (Not sure about the "quick" part of
it, though...) It may be easier to discuss the pros and cons more
specifically with that setup available.

It's true that doing this will result in maintenance work with the
desktop guide also going forward. Is it worth it? To be honest I'm not
sure. OTOH I'm not asking for an irreversible decision, only that we
give it a try.

If we later would conclude that it will cause too much work, we have the
option to fall back to GNOME Help at any time, let the users figure out
the rest themselves via various online resources, and discontinue the
desktop docs team.

Would there be a middle way? I don't know.

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Jeremy Bicha-2
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Gunnar Hjalmarsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Would there be a middle way? I don't know.

Thanks for giving more specifics about the differences in the Ubuntu
docs you see as being potentially valuable.

After reading it, this is my initial thinking (or proposal I guess):

1. Ubuntu would ship gnome-user-docs
2. Ubuntu could also provide an ubuntu-docs package that injects pages
into the existing gnome-user-docs framework. The Mallard format is
designed to allow extra content to be added like this (it's how
gnome-getting-started-docs works).
3. If we have to make changes to pages instead of adding new pages, we
could just modify the debian/rules for gnome-user-docs to not install
those specific pages. Then we just fork the page in ubuntu-docs. We
could do the same thing if we wanted to replace some of the pictures.

I think there are some benefits to not using patches for #3.
- Ubuntu and GNOME could share the same translations for gnome-user-docs
- I think it would be easier for the Docs team to work on regular help
pages rather than having to deal with modifying distro patches.

One more optional idea:
What do you think about converting the ubuntu-docs from bzr to git?
Since the Ubuntu Docs team should be submitting many changes to GNOME
directly now, I am thinking it would be easier for new contributors to
only need to learn one version control system instead of two. Would
switching to git be a problem for the existing team?

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Chris Perry-2
In reply to this post by Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Hi Gunnar

Thanks for trying to think this through. Good luck! Here's two points
that might be worth considering:

1. Canonical and the GNOME developers might talk to each other and
agree to incorporate some of the Ubuntu/Unity functionality into
GNOME. In that case it can be documented in the GNOME help.

 2. In the work I did for the Ubuntu 17.04 desktop help I remember
checking the GNOME help at times and noticing that some of it was
inaccurate when compared to the GNOME applications in Ubuntu 17.04.
(This doesn't necessarily mean that the GNOME help was inaccurate when
compared to the applications released in GNOME.) If the GNOME Docs
team is under-resourced then I'd be tempted to say: "Transfer the
Ubuntu Docs team into the GNOME docs team and only maintain GNOME
help". It would give the GNOME docs team a better chance of creating
good quality help.

Regards,

Chris.

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
In reply to this post by Jeremy Bicha-2
On 2017-04-29 04:27, Jeremy Bicha wrote:

> ... this is my initial thinking (or proposal I guess):
>
> 1. Ubuntu would ship gnome-user-docs
> 2. Ubuntu could also provide an ubuntu-docs package that injects
> pages into the existing gnome-user-docs framework. The Mallard format
> is designed to allow extra content to be added like this (it's how
> gnome-getting-started-docs works).
> 3. If we have to make changes to pages instead of adding new pages,
> we could just modify the debian/rules for gnome-user-docs to not
> install those specific pages. Then we just fork the page in
> ubuntu-docs. We could do the same thing if we wanted to replace some
> of the pictures.
>
> I think there are some benefits to not using patches for #3.
> - Ubuntu and GNOME could share the same translations for
> gnome-user-docs
> - I think it would be easier for the Docs team to work on regular
> help pages rather than having to deal with modifying distro patches.

Yes! This sounds clearly better than what I proposed. Most importantly
we wouldn't need to struggle with the upstream translations, and it
would also be more straightforward to upgrade gnome-user-docs.

One disadvantage with having two branches/packages is that we won't be
able to use yelp-check before committing to ubuntu-docs to identify
broken internal links, orphans etc. OTOH, the reduced number of pages to
pay attention to will probably make this manageable. (And it will be
possible to run yelp-check without this limitation afterwards, i.e. when
both packages have been installed.)

One thing which remains to be dealt with is how to build the HTML for
help.ubuntu.com. The .page files will be split into three source
packages/branches:
- gnome-user-docs
- gnome-getting-started-docs
- ubuntu-docs

We need a convenient method to do that. Maybe a separate tiny branch
with script + template which bases the build on the installed stuff in
/usr/share/help/<lang>/gnome-help ?

In any case, I like your proposal, Jeremy. Thanks!

> One more optional idea:
> What do you think about converting the ubuntu-docs from bzr to git?
> Since the Ubuntu Docs team should be submitting many changes to
> GNOME directly now, I am thinking it would be easier for new
> contributors to only need to learn one version control system instead
> of two. Would switching to git be a problem for the existing team?

Well, speaking for me it would be a learning curve. ;) But it sounds as
the right thing to do for the reason you mention.

However, it's probably not the most urgent step to take at the moment,
and personally I'd prefer that we wait with it until the new structure
is in place.

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
In reply to this post by Chris Perry-2
On 2017-04-29 12:25, Chris Perry wrote:
> 1. Canonical and the GNOME developers might talk to each other and
> agree to incorporate some of the Ubuntu/Unity functionality into
> GNOME. In that case it can be documented in the GNOME help.

Yeah, hopefully there will be more of that kind of collaboration as a
result of the decision to use the GNOME shell on Ubuntu. Time will tell.

> 2. In the work I did for the Ubuntu 17.04 desktop help I remember
> checking the GNOME help at times and noticing that some of it was
> inaccurate when compared to the GNOME applications in Ubuntu 17.04.
> (This doesn't necessarily mean that the GNOME help was inaccurate
> when compared to the applications released in GNOME.) If the GNOME
> Docs team is under-resourced then I'd be tempted to say: "Transfer
> the Ubuntu Docs team into the GNOME docs team and only maintain
> GNOME help". It would give the GNOME docs team a better chance of
> creating good quality help.

Well, we still need to handle the Ubuntu specific stuff. I'd rather say
that as of now it will be natural for members of the Ubuntu desktop docs
team to also be involved in the GNOME docs team.

I believe that most of the shortcomings you noticed when working with
17.04 apply upstream, so it would be great if you joined the GNOME docs
team and proposed that the improvements you already made are applied
upstream as well.

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Doug Smythies
In reply to this post by Jeremy Bicha-2
On 2017.04.29 15:48 Gunnar wrote:
> On 2017-04-29 04:27, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> ... this is my initial thinking (or proposal I guess):

...[snip]...

> One disadvantage with having two branches/packages is that we won't be
> able to use yelp-check before committing to ubuntu-docs to identify
> broken internal links, orphans etc. OTOH, the reduced number of pages to
> pay attention to will probably make this manageable. (And it will be
> possible to run yelp-check without this limitation afterwards, i.e. when
> both packages have been installed.)

Yes, I think we could run yelp-check on the help.ubuntu.com version.
I'm sure we can figure out something.

> One thing which remains to be dealt with is how to build the HTML for
> help.ubuntu.com. The .page files will be split into three source
> packages/branches:
> - gnome-user-docs
> - gnome-getting-started-docs
> - ubuntu-docs
>
> We need a convenient method to do that.

Agreed.

> Maybe a separate tiny branch
> with script + template which bases the build on the installed stuff in
> /usr/share/help/<lang>/gnome-help ?

It would my preference to not need the "installed stuff".
Why not?
1.) Because I almost always build/compile on a server without that stuff.
2.) We will want to be able to build/compile sometimes on a machine running
    a different version of Ubuntu than the docs html version being built.

I'll try to help with creating some build environment, with the disclaimer
that the requirements might end up beyond my abilities.

>> One more optional idea:
>> What do you think about converting the ubuntu-docs from bzr to git?
>> Since the Ubuntu Docs team should be submitting many changes to
>> GNOME directly now, I am thinking it would be easier for new
>> contributors to only need to learn one version control system instead
>> of two. Would switching to git be a problem for the existing team?
>
> Well, speaking for me it would be a learning curve. ;) But it sounds as
> the right thing to do for the reason you mention.

I use both bzr and git, but am not a super user of either.
I much prefer git, but yes there is a learning curve.

... Doug



--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Hannie Dumoleyn
In reply to this post by Jeremy Bicha-2
Op 29-04-17 om 04:27 schreef Jeremy Bicha:

> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Gunnar Hjalmarsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> One more optional idea:
> What do you think about converting the ubuntu-docs from bzr to git?
> Since the Ubuntu Docs team should be submitting many changes to GNOME
> directly now, I am thinking it would be easier for new contributors to
> only need to learn one version control system instead of two. Would
> switching to git be a problem for the existing team?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy Bicha
>
I would plea for git, but I am a bit selfish because I already use git
to upload translations to git.gnome (git commit, push, branch -a,
checkout etc.).

Hannie


--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
In reply to this post by Doug Smythies
On 2017-04-30 02:47, Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2017.04.29 15:48 Gunnar wrote:
>>
>
> Yes, I think we could run yelp-check on the help.ubuntu.com version.

Well, it probably can't be run on the converted HTML pages.

> I'm sure we can figure out something.

Me too.

>> One thing which remains to be dealt with is how to build the HTML for
>> help.ubuntu.com. The .page files will be split into three source
>> packages/branches:
>> - gnome-user-docs
>> - gnome-getting-started-docs
>> - ubuntu-docs
>>
>> We need a convenient method to do that.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Maybe a separate tiny branch
>> with script + template which bases the build on the installed stuff in
>> /usr/share/help/<lang>/gnome-help ?
>
> It would my preference to not need the "installed stuff".
> Why not?
> 1.) Because I almost always build/compile on a server without that stuff.
> 2.) We will want to be able to build/compile sometimes on a machine running
>     a different version of Ubuntu than the docs html version being built.

I agree on those disadvantages. Another approach would be to copy
basically the HTML build stuff which we currently have in ubuntu-docs to
the two other branches. One disadvantage with that would be that any
change to the script or template would need to be made in three places.

> I'll try to help with creating some build environment, with the disclaimer
> that the requirements might end up beyond my abilities.

Great if you start thinking; suppose we need to wait a bit before it can
be tested.


I'm going to make initial selections of ubuntu-docs pages to keep
respective gnome-user-docs pages to fork and modify. I'll also tweak
debian/rules in gnome-user-docs and make gnome-user-guide and
ubuntu-docs depend on each other so they can co-exist again.

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Alberto Salvia Novella
In reply to this post by Jeremy Bicha-2
Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
 > My idea is to keep a door open for customizing the desktop guide to
 > reflect the Ubuntu desktop distribution.

Thinking that nothing would be needed to change is a recurring thought
when making decisions, and always proves to be wrong.


Jeremy Bicha:
 > I am thinking it would be easier for new contributors to
 > only need to learn one version control system instead of two.

Yes. I would choose Git, as it is the de facto standard right now.


Chris Perry:
 > Canonical and the GNOME developers might talk to each other and
 > agree to incorporate some of the Ubuntu/Unity functionality into
 > GNOME.

GNOME has a very narrow way of selecting what to incorporate. I would
try, but I won't count on it.




--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
On 2017-04-30 12:52, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Chris Perry:
>> Canonical and the GNOME developers might talk to each other and
>> agree to incorporate some of the Ubuntu/Unity functionality into
>> GNOME.
>
> GNOME has a very narrow way of selecting what to incorporate.

Whether true or not, the decision to use GNOME shell on Ubuntu may
foster the working climate.

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed road map for ubuntu-docs

Alberto Salvia Novella
Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
> Whether true or not, the decision to use GNOME shell on Ubuntu may
> foster the working climate.

Hope so! At least this is what this change seems to be about.

Thanks.




--
ubuntu-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc