i would agree with this. since afs doesnt really have any other "complete" implementations it doenst seem like it is a good idea to divorce the code from the documentation of the code at this time. doing this will only lead to updates to the code and a failure to document the updates.
bos (for example) was updated to have the set/get restrict rpc. the pod documentation was updated (hooray!) but this new rpc didnt get documented. perhaps if .xg used doxygen (like the rest of afs) this would have been documented as a side effect of simply adding the rpc to the .xg file itself. On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:44:46 -0400 (EDT) "Matt W. Benjamin" <[email protected]> wrote: > agree. > > ----- "Derrick Brashear" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > yes please. > > > > Derrick > > > > > > On Aug 30, 2012, at 17:29, Jeffrey Altman > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 8/30/2012 5:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > > > > > >> To that end, I'd like to explcitly ask for comments on the notion > > of > > >> abandoning the RFC-Editor process entirely, in favor of publishing > > all > > >> of our "experimental" and "standard" documents on a web site > > maintained > > >> by this group (and specifically, by the chairs or their > > delegate(s)). > > > > > > I wish you had started a new thread for this question as I suspect > > it > > > will get lost in this one but > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AFS3-standardization mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization > _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
