Petko Yotov wrote:
On Monday 13 July 2009 20:07:04 DaveG wrote:
If that is correct, why would we not want to do this? I can see it might be
some work, but it sounds like Ed W is prepared for this, and just wants
input on what he should be looking for. (Again, this is how I read the
thread, and might be wrong.)
I read that someone knowingly broke his documentation links, and who doesn't
assume this -- it is our fault, not his. We want to "*deliberately* keep
things broken".
Yep, so re-READ the thread and you will see that I started talking about
consistency of the documentation, this thread has then broken off at a
tangent and started talking about technical issues of link formats...
Seriously - re-read the original email - there is one brief paragraph
justifying WHY I am fixing the documentation, but the basic email is
about improving consistency of the documentation.
Note that *nothing* was broken until *he* broke it. And we're trying to help
him with sample code to fix his bugs.
Well I still disagree, but this is getting nowhere, lets get back to the
"lets improve the documentation" topic which is the key issue
And we are asked what we are guys smoking, and "Right well fuck it". I do not
wish participate in this thread anymore.
Actually you are re-ordering the conversation - that was me giving up
and ranting earlier today. This happened AFTER all the other stuff
For the record, the pmwiki.org documentation is not locked for editing.
Check the Changelog and notice that I was starting to edit the
documentation just before posting my original question...
Actually you are the second person to make such a comment without even
thinking to check the changelogs... I think you should at least do some
basic research and actually read the original post before trying to send
digs my way...
Regards
Ed W
_______________________________________________
pmwiki-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
