Thanks for starting this, Hoss!
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:38 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
In hte spirit of improving documentation, i've started a document
summarizing the various comments/ideas about improving out
documentation...
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/Documentation_Improvements
: 3
In hte spirit of improving documentation, i've started a document
summarizing the various comments/ideas about improving out
documentation...
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/Documentation_Improvements
: 3. There is a whole lot of knowledge stored in the email archives,
: how can we leverage
I like the suggestion of having two views: a unified view and then
also a separate view. Slightly more work to setup, but should
satisfy both camps.
On May 31, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
I like the single javadoc build. The linking is nice, e.g., all
Analyzer implementations
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I'd rather see each jar get its own javadoc,
or at the very least, indicate which jar each
class is defined in for the ones that aren't
part of the core.
Yeah, I don't like that all the contribs are built in together. What do
others think? I would vote for separating
Paul Elschot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30/05/2007 23:57:47:
> On Thursday 31 May 2007 05:52, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> >
> > On May 30, 2007, at 9:33 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > >> I'd rather see each jar get its own javadoc,
> > >> or at the very least, indicate which jar each
> > >> class is d
On Thursday 31 May 2007 05:52, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 9:33 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> >> I'd rather see each jar get its own javadoc,
> >> or at the very least, indicate which jar each
> >> class is defined in for the ones that aren't
> >> part of the core.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah
On May 30, 2007, at 9:33 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I'd rather see each jar get its own javadoc,
or at the very least, indicate which jar each
class is defined in for the ones that aren't
part of the core.
Yeah, I don't like that all the contribs are built in together.
What do others think
Been meaning to get back on this, as there are some good ideas/points
in here.
On May 25, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Bob Carpenter wrote:
So, this is an open call for ideas on how we can improve our
docs. Here are some areas I think need improving:
Before I start suggesting improvements, let
me
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Mind you, our docs are an order of magnitude better than
this other project
I agree, Lucene is a very well documented project compared to many. In general
and in conjunction with LIA, it's a pretty easy project to get in to.
3. There is a whole lot of knowledge stor
So, this is an open call for ideas on how we can improve our docs. Here
are some areas I think need improving:
Before I start suggesting improvements, let
me qualify them all by saying I'm only
taking the time to do this because I love
Lucene and use it all the time.
Web Site Redesign
-
OK, so I have been really frustrated with the documentation of a
certain other open source project (a rather large and popular one)
that shall remain nameless, and it got me thinking about Lucene docs
and how we can improve them. Mind you, our docs are an order of
magnitude better than thi
11 matches
Mail list logo
