On Jul 13, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Robert Newson wrote: > It's clear that the wiki serves poorly as an official source of > documentation. This is not surprising given that's not where their > strengths lie.
Agreed in principle, but the API references pages on the wiki have been extremely useful to me in both learning & coding. I find it a lot easier to learn from references like these than from tutorials in books. I’m happy to give back (when appropriate) by fixing up the wiki docs until they're superseded. > There's an effort to create solid documentation that will form part of > future releases. They will live under source control with the code > base where we can make it part of our routine to ensure their accuracy > over time. Sounds good! How can I get involved, at least to the extent of reading what exists and reporting issues? Oh, and back to the topic at hand: > The ?conflicts=true parameter should be used here instead. I’m partial to ?open_revs because it returns the contents of all conflicting revisions in one call, instead of requiring one or more extra GETs. Is there a way to make ?conflicts do that too? —Jens
