On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:34:02AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> ...and then David Yitzchak Cohen said...
> % Anyway, I had no way of guessing that my locally installed docs would
> % be more up-to-date than the online version. Most programs these days
> % tell you in the docs to look online for up-to-date versions.
>
> 1) When you failed to find reply-hook in the stable docs on the web site,
> why didn't you try looking locally at your unstable package?
My unstable package doesn't have human-readable docs, so I have an easy
answer to that one ;-)
> 2) Who on earth would update the docs for the world to see with features
> that not only aren't available yet
Excuse me, the development tarballs (and even the CVS versions) _are_
available for the world to use, so why shouldn't their manuals be
available for the same world to see? ("No no, I can't tell you how to
use this program. It's a development version. You've gotta figure it
out for yourself in order to attain a deeper understanding of the Tao
of Mutterin'. Hint: UTF [1] to RTS [2], dude!")
> but might change or go away before
> release
Since the code has been released already, I'd say the devs kinda missed
that boat ... unless they want to "unrelease" the 1.5.x branch ... and if
they can unrelease the code, they can just as easily unrelease the docs,
so who cares?
> -- AND which, for all we know, could be flat-out wrong for the
> current version?
Um, the 1.4.x docs were undoubtably the basis for the 1.5.x docs,
so the doctrine of higher_version==better (which tends to hold in the
open source world) would indicate that the 1.5.x docs are probably less
flat-out wrong for the 1.5.x code than the 1.4.x docs are. In other
words, dev docs are better than no dev docs.
- Dave
[1]
UTF == Use The Force
[2]
RTS == Read The Source
--
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right?
Please visit this link:
http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgp5n5zUKXDtY.pgp
Description: PGP signature