Version documentation... Re: [PEAR-DOC] Is your package really documented? The truth

OK... big question... I'm about to release HTML_Page2. HTML_Page is not documented. Should the documentation be classified under HTML_Page or HTML_Page2? It is possible that people will stick to individual versions (e.g., if MDB2 == DB_v2, then replacing the DB docs would be foolish). However, I'm not going to release docs for HTML_Page. That will remain as-is. And I'll only document my 2.x series. On the other hand, documenting each version will in many cases be overkill and if devs are having a hard time documenting their packages the way it is, you can forget about them writing multiple documentations. And if they would, the manual will be so bloated that people will have a hard time finding the information they need. What do you guys think is the right way to go about this? I have my ideas, but I'm very unsure. Remember, the manual is there to provide people with information when they need it. It's not there just for the sake of completeness or for boasting. And even if you think your docs are good, who's to say the user will think so? People will look at the documentation for your package before installing it and will either say, "yeah, that is a great solution to my problem", or they'll say, "that looks very complicated, when I have more time, I'll think about using it". Klaus