On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:26:34AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > ...and then David Yitzchak Cohen said... > % On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 09:31:21AM -0500, David T-G wrote: > % > % > None at all. In fact, it's already done. The 1.4x docs are right up > % > there; you pointed to them yourself. > % > % The 1.4.x docs aren't the latest version. > > They're the latest stable version, which is all they're expected to be. "latest stable version" != "latest version" Else, stable would mean nothing (as it does in Redmond, for instance). > % > Oh, you mean the under-development CVS docs? > % > % Yes, smarty pants :-) > > Then I wouldn't look on the web page for docs for a dev branch of the > code. At best I might look for a "get your dev docs here!" link. I'm willing to settle for the latest version's docs, if necessary. That version (1.5.5.1i) was released on the web, so one should reasonably be able to expect to find the corresponding docs on the web, as well. I'm complaining that this simply isn't the case :-( > % > I'd say a good reason is > % > because they're not the latest version of the docs but instead a dev > % > version. > % > % The latest dev version is the latest version. Being labeled "dev" > > Clearly we have fundamental differences in the general meaning of the > word "version" in relation to software releases. Clearly, we have different interpretations of the basic rules of adjectives in the English language. Adjectives limit the interpretation of the corresponding noun to a subset of its possible meanings. None of the possible meanings of "version" is "not-a-version-at-all-but-just-some-tofu-gunk-or-some-other-meat-substitute" AFAI (or Webster, or Oxford) K ;-/ > % doesn't make it any less of a version. Yes, it's a different type of > % version, but no, it's still a version, and since it's the latest thing > % out there and it is a version, it's the latest version by implication. > > Nope. I completely disagree. I completely disagree that your name is David. I'm not going to give any reason, but that won't stop me from completely disagreeing, anyway ;-P > % > Get 'em from CVS the same way you did the package. > % > % Unfortunately, that doesn't work. CVS contains only source files, no HTML. > > Can't help you there since I don't speak CVS. I should think that the > doc source is in there, though, so go and dig. The doc source is in the CVS, but not the human-readable version. If you want to argue that as a CVS guy I should really have the doc-generating tools installed on my system anyway, I'm willing to defer. However, the released dev versions are distributed as complete packages, no different from the not-so-stable-by-comparison 1.4.x packages, and I see no reason why docs for _those_ versions shouldn't be available online (especially since the HTML is already generated for the tarballs anyway, just like it is for the 1.4.x series). > % > Or get it > % > out of the tarball you downloaded to get this mutt (doc/manual.txt). > % > % ...what tarball? > > The one at > > ftp://ftp.mutt.org/mutt/devel/ > > of course. Why shouldn't people on 1.4.x have to do the same thing to view the docs? > % > Or > % > press F1 and see what you have installed with your development version. > % > % nothing ;-) > > Oops. Your mutt install is incomplete. If your F1 key is properly > mapped to point to where the docs should be, perhaps you should uninstall > this version of mutt and try it again. Uninstall'n'reinstall may be popular around Bill's camp, but any self-respecting Dave tries to figure out why why the install is incomplete. In my particular case, it's because I don't have up-to-date versions of a bunch of tools required for human-readable doc generation out of the source. In other words, I can uninstall and reinstall Mutt until I'm blue in the face and ain't no human-readable docs gonna magically appear ;-) - 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:
pgpUE9bui7fIU.pgp
Description: PGP signature