>Not only do I agree, I would VOTE on getting **significant** >changes/function documented (rough would be find) and APPROVED >before implementing.
I agree in principle, but I wouldn't like to commit speculative design changes into cvs and then seek approval as this would render the cvs documentation and code inconsistent. I'd prefer to use axis-dev to notify design intentions and then, when consensus is reached or assumed, build those notes into the cvs docs along with the code changes etc. and commit them together. Also, I wonder if we should be consistently using the cvs contents such as the docs to describe facts and the cvs commit logs to summarise *changes* to the facts? I don't like seeing useful design notes get 'hidden' in cvs logs. Glyn
