<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2657.73">
<TITLE>RT3 Documentation: Hackers, FAQ, etc. ???</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>A couple days ago, Daniel A. Melo asked about the missing RT3 Hacking Guide... But his post has apparently been warnocked. There are other posts requesting RT3 internals documentation from Patrick LeBoutillier and Mikhail Sobolev dating back to June and September... which also went unanswered.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>In early November, Bob Goldstein asked about meta-docs (<A HREF="http://lists.fsck.com/pipermail/rt-users/2003-November/018157.html" TARGET="_blank">http://lists.fsck.com/pipermail/rt-users/2003-November/018157.html</A>). Specifically he asked about the missing RT3 FAQ and Hacking Guide. Jesse responded:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> *nod* Point well taken. The documentation effort is somewhat</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> behind where we'd like it to be, though we should have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> exciting news on that front soon.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>When is soon?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Who is we?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Will you be wanting feedback?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>How to contribute?</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Our company is looking to transition away from our current issue tracking system. I've been hesitant to evaluate RT because of its reputation for a difficult install and configuration... That and lack of developer documentation for the current release. I have the time to do a vanilla install, but not necessarily to wade in and grok the code. However, a vanilla install isn't going to give me an overview of the schema, internals, extensibility, etc. I.e., what we as a customer would have to look forward to and live with if the vanilla install looks promising. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Currently, I'm left to read the RT2 developer docs and hope RT3 is only different in "better" ways. The window of opportunity at my company is slip sliding away. I guess I'll go ahead and see how far I get... </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Even if the IS guys like the demo... And I don't mean to be an ass here, but I can foresee the objections I can expect to get. They're going to visit the bestpractical website and see less documentation than they're used to and no convenient access to a knowledgebook. If they're patient enough to navigate the website, they'll eventually find more documentation on fsck.com/rtfm. But the click paths between sites aren't always short, consistent or obvious. Then perhaps they'll visit the fsck.com homepage itself, and the impression that will be formed when they realize how intertwined the company and Jesse's personal website are, will be of a one-man shop operating on a shoe-string.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Of course the product (with support contract) that we're currently using has bad documentation, is bug-ridden and has provided almost nothing in the way of paid for support. But they sure do have slick website ;)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>At least RT is open source and looks fairly mature. Though if it is within Best Practical's game plan to make in-roads into your typical blinders-half-on mostly microsoft company, here are a couple of suggestions:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>o More documentation: schema, internals, customization, 3rd party add-ons</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>o Better documentation: continuous updates and improvements driven by developer community participation</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>o Centralized documentation: currently split between bestpractical.com/rt/docs.html, fsck.com/rtfm, and pod</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>o Streamline the site for the return visitors. People will visit the site once to read the product literature. But those who use the product and visit the site frequently will be primarily interested in: recent news, downloading updates/patches/add-ons, looking up answers to problems, and documentation. One pain for example: it currently takes ~6 clicks to get to the mailing list archives</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>o Put a better chinese wall between the personal and company websites. Consider recasting fsck.com or creating an explicitly Best Practical endorsed developer community site. In which case you could leave the company website as sales brochure, but more quickly shunt the developers to the developer site and provide the frequent use items I'd mentioned there.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Sorry for the rant... I'm just worried about the hard sell I'll have if I take a fancy to RT and want to push it. And I have to say, RT looks promising. I have the impression that the people who swear by it out number those who swear at it. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>cheers,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Garrett</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Garrett Goebel</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>IS Development Specialist </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>www.scriptpro.com garrett at scriptpro dot com </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>