> Exactly. The CVS has corrected documentation that should be made > available > to the user community.
Up to date documentation is available on the website, this is common practice. Unless we seperate the release of docs from code its unavoidable, not least because we're bound to increment release numbers by the jakarta standards we can't patch a release once its been made, and incrementing release numbers to patch docs would lead to a flood of email asking us what exactly had changed in the product.. > The fact remains that 2.0a3 is out there as a Release Build. For > better or > for worse. If 2.1aX is an improvement, as we all seem to believe > that it is No, actually we don't, or at least _I_ didn't until two days ago, and even then there are still the user documentation and open bugs (still being actively discussed) to be dealt with notwithstanding the javadocs. IMHO 2.1.1 is *not* an improvement until the documentation that accompanies it is of an acceptable standard to at least avoid leading people astray, even if it isn't actually helpful. > (or is close to being), then it should be put out as the next incremental > step on the road. If you're refering to a milestone, its already been made. I don't believe that we javadocs are a showstopper, but neither do I believe that they should be swept under the carpet. Once the precendent has been establised to defer unpopular tasks it is hard to instil any urgency in them. I believe that we should certainly be considering the javadocs when we vote, as well as the user docs, website and functionality. What emphasis each commiter gives to that will be reflected in their vote. d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
