Brett Knights wrote:
>
> I'd have to agree with Diane. The case in question it seemed the person didn't
>really know how to run javadoc in the first place.
> The ant documentation is a bit rough in that the index could use more entries but
>everything is there somewhere.
>
> Incidentally the source seems very well documented and makes a handy low level
>reference as well.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Diane Holt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:28 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Ant documentation (was: Re: javax.sql.DataSource(Thanks!!))
> >
> >
> > --- Suu Quan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Same here (not javadoc, but other tasks). It says a lot about the
> > > quality of the documentation.
> > > If I'm still not clear: I give a Failing grade for documentation.
> >
> > I completely disagree -- but maybe I'm too familiar with it
> > at this point
> > to be objective about it. Where, specifically, do you think it fails?
> > (Keeping in mind that it's not intended to teach people Java, XML, or
> > anything other than how to use Ant.)
> >
> > Diane
> >
> > =====
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
I'll third these remarks. The first time I had to use Ant we were under
a lot of pressure to get a build out and Ant (with it's docs) came
through with flying colors. I'm just starting to get involved with this
(and others) project and I really appreciate the effort that's being put
into making the package usable. Maybe it's because I've had to make code
work when the only docs were the (uncommented) code.
--- Suu Quan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I'm still not clear: I give a Failing grade for documentation.
Then fix it. That's the whole idea behind Open Source. If you don't like
something, make it better, don't complain about it!
/mike
--
******************************************
Mike Dougherty -- Java Software Engineer
******************************************
