TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
We're doing that here at Intel, except we're using Visual Source Safe (VSS)
instead. This ensures that documentation is held to the same control and
quality standard as code. It's also for accountability as well. People know
what got changed and by whom. So when it comes time to blame and
finger-point, VSS is the smoking gun of choice.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dawson McKnight [mailto:dawson_mcknight -at- hotmail -dot- com]
> Subject: "Bug" reporting for documentation?
>
> Should source code management tools be used to report "bugs" in
> documentation?
>
> My company recently started using StarTeam for documentation version
> control. The software works well enough for that purpose,
> but it is being
> suggested, much to my chagrin, that we should use StarTeam
> (which in its
> full-blown form is really meant to manage code) to report all
> major "bugs"
> in our documentation (excluding grammar and spelling mistakes -- but
> substantive changes can be numerous and extensive).
>
> Am I crazy, or is this the bad idea that it smells like to
> me?
