Instead of non-specific "head is broken" email, why not point out what is broken?
Livedocs is running fine here; I built it only a week or so ago with no problems. Plus, I have a mirror that updates daily (livedocs.thebrainroom.net) with no problems (assuming that someone hasn't broken phpdoc....) If you have a patch that works properly, by all means send it our way (either myself, Ilia, Derick or Goba). What we don't want is a half-baked patch that "fixes" stuff for one person/case and that breaks everything else; and that is the reason we tightened up the karma--some of us are *already* running livedocs in production. I've seen plenty of people say that livedocs isn't ready, but non of them have said why or come up with a firm list of what needs to be done to make it ready, let alone come up with patches for that. We've already said that if a steady stream of good patches come in, more karma can be granted. It's OpenSource: hack, send in patches. --Wez. PS: no need to pgp sign messages to a mailing list... On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 10:59:51 -0400, Sean Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [This is a follow-up post to my previous post, "Livedocs woes".] > > What is the current status of livedocs development? > > My understanding is that anyone with phpdoc karma, also, once, had > livedocs karma. A commit was made that some maintainers did not like, > and karma was removed, and only granted to certain people (Currently: > iliaa,goba,wez,derick,sfox,alan_k). Please correct me if I am wrong. > > There are several outstanding issues with the livedocs code. As I said > in my post, last night, HEAD seems broken. Also, Nuno has a number of > patches available at http://livedocs.aborla.net/ > > My point? I'd like to determine the proper procedure for patching > (getting patches approved for) livedocs, or find an alternative > development method. > > I realize that livedocs is not ready for production, as it is intended. > It is, however VERY useful for doc team members (see Philip's posts re: > CHANGELOG and the EXIF changes he made for a practical example). > > I also understand that the original authors of livedocs don't want their > code messed with. Isn't this the beauty of CVS, though? > > I suspect this idea won't be well-received, but if we're not > willing/able to keep livedocs HEAD up to date, could we not branch the > module for testing purposes? Karma could be re-granted on a per-case > basis, with the condition that non-core developers do not commit to > HEAD, but to the dev branch. My understanding of the "staleness" of > livedocs is that Ilia and Wez are busy on PHP 5. I understand this. > People like Nuno, though, have demonstrated a knowledge of livedocs > code, and should be able to contribute, IMHO. I'd also like to see > livedocs tagged regularly so we can easily "rollback" to a previous > version (last night, while getting livedocs running, and failing > miserably, I was tempted to start pulling random dates out for cvs up -D ). > > I'm not trying to point fingers, here, I'd just like to see livedocs > move forward. Can we find a way to make this happen? > > <can type="worms" state="open" /> > > S
