On 7/5/06, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So in your terms Struts 2 == SAF2. This does not tell me much ;-) Is it strictly WW2.x or anything starting from WW2.x codebase onwards? I guess the latter considering that "Struts 2 is represented by the repository head".
Yes, I think the "repository head" is as clear as it gets. If the documentation is consistent -- and I intend to do everything I can to assure that it is -- then readers will take our meaning from context.
See, your definition is not clear enough for an end user while being too technical. Why would end users care about repository naming conventions? They download binaries and they read docs and articles, names should match there.
We are talking about guidelines for people writing documentation. If we define the terms in a way meaningful to ourselves, and use them consistently in context, then the meaning to other readers will take care of itself.
I agree that javadocs should not mention a particular version unless it is important. Javadocs are tied to a particular release anyway.
-Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
