On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:32:43AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> ...and then David Yitzchak Cohen said...
> % On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:34:02AM -0500, David T-G wrote:
> % > 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 ;-)
>
> But it should, so I have an easy retort :-) :-)
not really ... the fact that they "should" be available doesn't make
them magically available, so when I failed to find reply-hook in the
stable docs on the Web, I didn't try looking locally at my unstable
package because it came with no docs for me to read ... I fail to see
what you'd expect me to do differently. . .
> % > 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
>
> They are in the same way that the devel code is -- in the devel sources!
Ah, but they aren't. They're only available within the sources
themselves, so you can't DL them without also getting the source.
The 1.4.x docs, on the other hand, ARE available by the same way that
the code is, by HTTP/FTP.
> % 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!")
>
> Ha ha :-)
>
> IMHO, you're missing the point; the docs on the web page are for the
> stable version. I could accept the argument that perhaps devel docs
> should *also* be available for reading on the web site, but never that
> they should replace the stable version.
That's all I'm asking for. If I came across as asking for them to
replace the 1.4.x docs, I screwed up real bad :-(
> % > 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?
>
> Sorry; while I meant "release" as "release as a stable version", I did
> not necessarily make that clear.
Well, I'm not asking the docs to be "released as a stable version," simply
to be "released" in the same way that the code itself is released, online.
>> [me appearing to propose 1.5.x docs online instead of 1.4.x docs]
> Certainly, but they'd be all sorts of wrong for the 1.4 code. Imagine
> the poor guy who kept posting to the list asking why his reply-hooks
> never did anything even though he had followed the docs religiously!
As I noted above, I've obviously screwed up really badly here. I did
NOT mean to clobber the 1.4.x docs online with the 1.5.x ones, but rather
to add the 1.5.x docs separately to the Web.
> % words, dev docs are better than no dev docs.
>
> Yep. And that's why you get them in the dev package.
Thank heaven for that ... but it's nice to have an online version for
reference (like the one your clueless user above would be following
instead of reading his own installed version - clearly, there's much to
be gained from an online manual for any piece of software).
> % [1]
> % UTF == Use The Force
> %
> % [2]
> % RTS == Read The Source
Once again, I'd like to appologize if I came across as asking for "cp
1.5.x/docs webtree/docs" ... I meant "cp 1.5.x/docs webtree/1.5.x/docs"
only :-)
- Dave
--
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:
pgpEbKbPOwkUt.pgp
Description: PGP signature