On 18-01-11 14:17, Tom Hobbs wrote:
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I think that one of Sim's concerns is that the current build process is pretty badly documented. It's not
indeed.
I *think* (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that he doesn't want us to repeat that mistake when coming up with *any* new build mechanism, be that new ant scripts, poms or anything else. His view is that a design document when discussing any new system could automatically become that explanatory documentation once the new system is done. Is that right?
indeed.
Currently on River-300 there are poms, new directory structures etc. It would be nice to see some documentation regarding what module lives where, what it's purpose is, how it is built and tested and what it's relationship is with other modules. For someone with no River/Jini background that would be very useful. I think that the new page that Peter has started is possibly designed for that kind of thing. Is that right?
AFAIK, indeed.
Let's not let this conversation degenerate any further though. Let's wait on River-300 to be announced complete, all review it and then we can judge what else it needs (if anything) and any other changes before we take a vote on whether to accept or reject it.
Exact. Thanks Tom. Gr. Sim -- QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
