on 1/12/01 2:28 PM, "Will Stranathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've tried looking at other frameworks that are similar to Turbine, and
> what I've found is that - there are none! Turbine is the only framework
> that is as complete from a codebase in the framework. This doesn't mean
> that there's nothing missing from the framework, though.
Correct. We are currently missing quite a lot...however, as always...I see
Turbine as an evolution...this is partly the reason why there hasn't been a
"release" yet.
> The biggest drawback with Turbine right now is the documentation. I
> understand that the codebase is in a state of flux (no pun intended,
> Jason) right now, but I think there are some parts of the framework that
> are solid ENOUGH to begin really focusing on documentation.
>
> Is there a TODO for priorities on documentation? I feel like I can be
> helpful in the documentation area, but I didn't know if there was a
> priorities list to go by.
I would say the #1 TODO priority is to remove all the ECS usage as Screens
related documentation and to re-write the FSD to be more inline with the way
things are now. I would also like to see Pull and integration with Velocity
become the central focus of the documentation.
-jon
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
