On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Philip Guenther <guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Side note: I should make clear that I am not committer to GNU make and > do not speak for the project. I'm just a contributer to the lists, > answering questions where I can. > Likewise. > IMO, the suggestion that was proposed would reduce the overall > usability of the manual and increase the confusion. > I think you and the others in the "nay" camp may be being a bit unfair. As far as I can see, nobody has proposed (in this thread) that the entire manual be reworked to note the version in which each feature appeared. You're absolutely right that that would stink but it's a straw man. The proposal, as I understand it, is to add a note about this particular incompatibility because of the mysterious, silent way it fails. I think any of us who've been reading this list for a long time can attest that it's one of the more common problems that people stumble over. It's a golden oldie, so I don't know why it would be so bad to add a sentence for it. There may even be a couple of other cases that could get similar treatment. It doesn't have to become a slippery slope. > If the GNU website were to require you to select the version of make > you wanted to see the documentation for, I think that would be a > reasonable 'solution'. Perhaps a layout like > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ could be done without too much > complexity. > > Another nice example is the Python docs ( http://docs.python.org/2/index.html). Notice the dropdown at the top left where you get to pick the version you care about. David Boyce
_______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
