On April 29, 2002, Fabien wrote:
> I agree : having a doc in scratchpad for quick review, then having them > moved to core doc even if not perfect, and adding patch from time to > time > seems to be more realistic. But how many people -- not committers -- actually submit patches for the documentation that exists? I'm just hoping to improve the quality of the docs, before they are even committed, as well give users more efficient ways to contribute. > We must'nt forget that code is still moving and that the doc will have > to be > patched anyway. (I even do not know if the current HEAD constructor of > AbstractSAXSource need the Environnement object :) ) Yes, this is certainly true but not for *all* docs. Granted, documentation for an open source project is going to have a shorter lifecycle than other kinds of docs. However, I don't think it's a good excuse to have a loosely structured development effort. When code has holes, it breaks or performs unacceptably. People have a great incentive to fix it. When documentation has holes, potential users and evaluators give up. There's a much weaker incentive structure for fixing documentation. That's why I think we need to minimize these problems, as best we can, during initial development and not rely so much on maintenance. Diana --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
