> > If 2.1aX is an improvement, as we all seem to believe
> > that it is
> We don't, or at least _I_ didn't until two days ago
I didn't think so either, until recently. And I'm NOT saying that it is
ready today, either, because there ARE issues that should be resolved before
the Release Build. The question is what are the items to be done to get it
that way. That was the question Peter raised in his initial post, and the
question you raised again in your post of a few minutes ago. :-)
> the user documentation and open bugs (still being actively discussed)
Both are things that I agree need to be addressed.
> 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.
Agreed.
> If you're refering to a milestone, its already been made.
Thank you. Would you mind if a message went out on James-User telling folks
that we're working towards a new Release Build, and asking them for
contributions towards the documentation? They could contribute actual bits
of documentation, or just questions that they are having trouble with.
I'll post up an example of multiple mailing lists so that people can see
what needs to be done for EACH new mailing list. The current documentation
isn't clear on that (in fact, mine works but perhaps I missed a point).
Should such contributions be posted to James-Dev or James-User?
> I don't believe that we javadocs are a showstopper, but neither do I
believe
> that they should be swept under the carpet.
That is exactly what I have been saying, Danny. No one is sweeping javadocs
under the carpet, or deferring them. They are being worked on actively.
Andrew has been arguing vociferously that they are a showstopper, and that's
the point of disagreement.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
