[Scons-dev] Proposal for SCons documentation on StackOverflow...

[Bill Deegan]

Should we pre-populate with all the current scons docs?

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

> Bill,
>
> On 31.07.2016 23:17, Bill Deegan wrote:
>
>> Dirk,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de <mailto:
>> tshortik at gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> We need someway to indicate on stackoverflow that this is the intent or
>> we'll get mired in a confusing mass of people expecting all
>> the documents to be in stackoverflow.. (Seeing this already)..
>>
>>
>>
> that's why new contributions and edits have to get approved first. And I
> wouldn't mind having a parallel stream of docs and examples in
> StackOverflow that we can directly refer to (or copy-paste nice examples
> from). I guess I simply don't see the final scenario that you seem to be
> concerned about. Can you be more specific?
>
> After all, this is just the start of the SO documentation...so I expect an
> initial rush by a few contributors (early adopters), and after that it will
> be up to us (the SCons team) to fill in most of the infos there. And
> especially for the deep-knowledge parts there won't be a lot of people that
> are capable of describing how things work, let alone having the time to do
> so.
>
> And don't forget: every reference and mentioning of the keyword "SCons" on
> the internet counts...this is really a kind of cheap PR for us if we manage
> to keep the SO docs going.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dirk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev at scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20160801/8be43744/attachment.html>