[00:37] <drs305> billybigrig: Still here?
[00:38] <billybigrig> cc yeah
[00:38] <billybigrig> you good with moin moin formmating?
[00:39] <drs305> Is that the wiki?
[00:39] <billybigrig> yeah, it uses the moin moin engine
[00:39] <drs305> I'm learning, slowly.
[00:40] <drs305> I was playing with the grub.cfg display. It's too big. I tried breaking it up on my practice page:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/drs305/Sandbox
[00:40] <drs305> billybigrig: Have you seen the editing help pages for ubuntu wiki?
[00:42] <drs305> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/HelpOnEditing
[15:30] <evanrmurphy> Hi all, andrew_sayers and I have been working a bit on documentation in #ubuntu-signpost.
[15:31] <evanrmurphy> Help documentation specifically. Thought the Documentation Team would be interested and could lend us some insight/help.
[17:56] <Flannel> andrew_sayers: You mind reverting your FirefoxNewVersion and then incorporating the 3.5 specific stuff into the older page?
[22:38] <andrew_sayers> Flannel: You mean the one with all the terminal commands?  That version kinda worried me, because that page is linked from Google and ubuntuforums.org now, so beginners will try to follow it.
[23:34] <Flannel> andrew_sayers: The page will all the info, yeah.  Just add the FF3.5 stuff to the top (and now that it's final, we don't even have to mention other stuff--just use the repos)
[23:35] <Flannel> andrew_sayers: With proper notification stuff, no one will follow the old stuff unless they have to (old version of Ubuntu that mozillateam doesn't want to support, etc)
[23:38] <andrew_sayers> Flannel: How about putting that stuff in FirefoxNewVersion/Compile, and linking it from a "See Also" section at the bottom?
[23:38] <Flannel> There's instructions on that page that have nothing to do with compiling.
[23:39] <Flannel> The current page works for *one* version of Ubuntu, and is specific to *one* version of firefox, it's not a good thing.
[23:39] <andrew_sayers> Sorry, /Advanced
[23:40] <andrew_sayers> The "daily" builds work for many versions, FWIW.
[23:41] <Flannel> I don't see anything wrong with giving people that other information readily.  Put the relevant stuff on top, and put adequate warnings around the non-recommended stuff.  Most people aren't idiots, and those who are idiots are lazy, so they won't read below the fold.
[23:41] <Flannel> s/non-recommended/non-ideal/
[23:42] <Flannel> The current page doesn't talk about how to set a new/manual/whatever firefox to be the default browser without making dpkg unhappy, for instance.
[23:43] <Flannel> It's the loss of information like that, plus the fact that when firefox 4.2 comes out and people want to try it, we'll have to then change all our links to point to the /Advanced page
[23:43] <Flannel> so they can know how to safely extract the pre-compiled firefox and set it up, tec.
[23:43] <Flannel> etc that is.
[23:44] <andrew_sayers> I'm reading through the old version, and it's kinda specific to FF 3.0.
[23:44] <Flannel> the specific urls and stuff may be, yes,
[23:44] <andrew_sayers> We'd have to write a whole new version-neutral bit.
[23:44] <Flannel> Before that, it was specific to 2... or whatever
[23:45] <Flannel> Even with doing manual installs of firefox, there's a safer way of doing it, and we want to make sure the safer methods are easy to find
[23:45] <andrew_sayers> How many people want to run Hardy with FF 3.5 anyway?  Surely if you wanted the latest and greatest, you'd install Jaunty?
[23:45] <Flannel> We've already had three people ask about it in #ubuntu inthe past week that I can remember
[23:46] <andrew_sayers> And you'd rather not point them to the daily builds?
[23:46] <Flannel> er... daily builds aren't safe at all.
[23:47] <Flannel> I'd rather give them all the information, and have them choose what path is best for them
[23:48] <andrew_sayers> Hang on, I'll ask in #ubuntu-mozillateam in case they have any recommendations.
[23:48] <Flannel> If they're bent on using a binary from mozilla, I'd rather them get the information on how to do that safely with Ubuntu, rather than finding information thats some other distro specific, and then breaking things
[23:49] <Flannel> they *will* find that information, we don't need to pull wool over anyones eyes.
[23:51] <andrew_sayers> I only disagree with that if the Mozilla team have specific recommendations.  Otherwise my only point is that hiding it behind a click is safer.
[23:52] <Flannel> I don't see how hiding it behind a click is safer.  They're getting those same instructions from a dozen of other websites (including mozilla itself).  Making it *easy* to find the safe way to use mozilla binaries is the only thing we can do to minimize problems
[23:52] <andrew_sayers> If they're that intent, a single click won't stop them.  But it will stop people that are just browsing.
[23:53] <Flannel> No one who's just browsing will think "oh, lets do this the difficult and non-recommend way when an easier way is right there!"
[23:54] <Flannel> The wiki has the capability to include big warning icons, etc.  We've done it on other pages, I don't see why this shouldn't be done the same way
[23:55] <andrew_sayers> What's the harm in putting it behind a click?
[23:55] <Flannel> People will be less likely to see it
[23:57] <Flannel> And there are more groups of people who will benefit from seeing it than those who will benefit from not seeing it (of the people who would go to that page)
[23:59] <andrew_sayers> Just got word back from #ubuntu-mozillateam.  Recommendation is to use the Mozilla security PPA.