[FM Discuss] FLOSS manuals archive sites - and a volunteer request

[Helen Varley Jamieson]

i would say delete all duplicate copies, it just makes it confusing :)

On 28.11.21 17:18, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> Em qui., 25 de nov. de 2021 às 06:25, Mick Chesterman
> <M.Chesterman at mmu.ac.uk <mailto:M.Chesterman at mmu.ac.uk>> escreveu:
>
>     Hi there,
>
>      
>
>     I’ve been working with Alexandre Porres from the pure data
>     community to correct older versions of our pure data manual and
>     the current one.
>
>
> Hi folks, that's me!
>
> We have been updating the "current" document here
> => https://en.flossmanuals.net/pd-extended/_full/
> <https://en.flossmanuals.net/pd-extended/_full/>
>
> One thing that was confusing is that this was referred to as a "Pure
> Data" manual, but was in fact a "Pd-extended" manual. We changed the
> title and I'm editing the first introduction page. What needs to be
> updated there is the fact that Pd-extended is long gone and abandoned,
> and it doesn't run in newer versions of macOS, for instance. Warnings
> have been made that the book is being kept as a historical document,
> and that it can still be useful if you adapt the examples to the
> current version of the official and main distribution of Pure Data
> (aka Pd Vanilla) and install the externals used on the book.
>
> By the way, there are currently no plans whatsoever to start a new and
> updated manual on FLOSS Manuals, or elsewhere. Anything like that is
> pretty unlikely to happen. Our efforts are just in improving the
> official manual that comes with Pd Vanilla (now currently referred to
> in the edits I made to the "current" FLOSS manual).   
>
> ------
>
> Now, we also have this archived version of the same book. And I just
> don't understand why it exists. It was actually the exact same book,
> with the same contents as the "new one". We now have minor edits to
> explain the current scenario and avoid confusions, but keeping the
> archived version still adds noise and confusion.
>
> As for possible solutions, we can make the same changes back into the
> archived one. But why keep both identical books around? One archived,
> and another not?
>
> It just makes sense to me to delete the old archived one and just keep
> this new one around, which also the same document.
>
> What do you people think?
>
> Thanks a lot for your work keeping up FLOSS Manuals.
>
> Cheers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net - you can unsubscribe here
-- 

helen varley jamieson

helen at creative-catalyst.com <mailto:helen at creative-catalyst.com>
http://www.creative-catalyst.com <http://www.creative-catalyst.com>
http://www.upstage.org.nz <http://www.upstage.org.nz>
https://mobilise-demobilise.eu <https://mobilise-demobilise.eu/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/attachments/20211129/a6ccb2d2/attachment.html>