Boris, I understand your concern about an irregular release. I also understand its not just my time but the time of those that have to approve the changes and commit them. So in the end it is up to you.
Personally I don't mind making changes that will last a couple of months. Secondly, I think that even if the cygwin and mingw directions were shortened to "see unix directions" in version 3.0, making that explicitly clear, and organizing the documentation as per my suggestions would make everything clear for parties not completely familiar with build systems. As developers of a general purpose library used by multiple projects, the xerces team is much more familiar with build systems and the like than developers of more focused applications that use your code. So If the docs are in the source I can grab the matest from source control, find the docs and submit a patch if you think its worth it. If not I would like to look over the 3.0 documentation before release and see if there is anything unclear about it. Thank you for your response. Regards, Justin Dearing On 10/17/07, Boris Kolpackov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Justin, > > Justin Dearing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If the powers that be would like me to make these changes and submit a > > patch. > > Thanks for the offer. When I was updating the documentation for 2.8.0, > I considered adding a separate section for MinGW, but decided against > it because (1) the MinGW-Msys toolchain is very similar to UNIX and > (2) I didn't think there are many people using it. Perhaps I should > have added it anyway. > > Now, after 2.8.0 is out, updating the documentation will require > some considerations. The major problem is that the documentation > is normally updated with the release (the source distribution > contains a complete copy of documentation, the same as on the > web). The second thing to consider is that the upcoming 3.0.0 > release will have a completely different, configure-based build > system so the documentation section, at least for UNIX/Cygwin/Mingw, > will need to be re-written pretty much from scratch. It is not > clear to me that it is a good idea to spend time on writing > documentation for MinGW while in a few months most people who > are starting to use Xerces-C++ will be using 3.0.0. > > What do you think? > > Boris > > -- > Boris Kolpackov > Code Synthesis Tools CC > http://www.codesynthesis.com > Open-Source, Cross-Platform C++ XML Data Binding > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
