On Aug 3, 4:57 am, Matt Wilkie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Simply put, there are too many websites. Too many places to look for > > documentation, a.k.a help. Too many places to find out what's > > happening and where Leo might, or might not, be going. Prune them all > > except one I say. Or burn the field and plant a new one. >
EXACTLY! I do not know about others, but I find that the absence of documentation is easier to deal with than the presence of bad documentation. When you ask questions framed in false understandings gleaned from bad documentation, even good answers frustrate by not reconciling with the documented approach. >From my early days in IT, I learned to do my homework before I asked others to help me solve a problem. I worked with a brilliant sysadmin whose first question was always - "Have you looked in the manual?". If your answer was not in the affirmative, the conversation was over. Bad documentation confuses and there is no clear way to know which Leo documentation is good and which documentation is bad until you try to put it to use in specific situations. Creation dates are no clue because old bad documentation is often ported to new formats (Sphinx) without any thought to editing the contents. On Aug 2, 5:45 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote: > 2. Leo is, after all, open source, so everything is potentially > visible, maybe with surprisingly little work. So another strategy > would be to familiarize yourself with the code enough to ask > code-level questions. I, or others, can then offer advice. I do look at code - and good code can always be reused. Leo does eat its own dog-food, but along with the treasures of "good scripts" buried in the code, there are the skeletons of abandoned past efforts (and quite frankly - some bad code) still commingled with the gems. I ask for the time and you tell me I need to learn how to build a watch. I know this is a snarky response especially when you and key others so kindly and generously give your time to respond to posted questions. But "look at the code" sounds like something I might have heard in the pre-4.0 Redhat linux listserves which were awash in arrogance and condescension. You pose that either (1) there is not enough specificity in my comments for you to respond to or (2) I can take the open source code and do my own thing. Well, the code only informs what the tool is. It does not inform how to use the tool. A "Leo Cookbook" would not be a dump of the code, or a pseudo-code version of the code; it would be a "how to" manual with complete scripts showing Leo employed in action. This group's email traffic is often the only place to find guidance on how to employ Leo in its current form. But those communications are often cryptic to the unwashed. As Matt so eloquently stated: > I do wish there were a low friction way to punt the many gems which > surface in email threads to higher prominence. That is all that I am asking for. Bernie Pursley Ellington, CT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
