Re: Is your package really documented? The truth

<pmjones@ciaweb.net> wrote : > > On Apr 30, 2004, at 9:38 AM, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > >> The fact that you are working on writing missing documentation is very >> good, >> that's not what I am worried about. It is also great that you are >> volunteer >> to convert wiki written documentation to docbook. > > I too applaud David's work here. It is tedious and grueling, and all > too often thankless. Good show, man! :-) > > >> But I think that's maybe relying on you too much and one of these >> days, you >> might be too busy to take care of that, especially with 139 (and more >> coming) missing docs. So at the moment, I see your solution as a >> placebo to >> a bigger problem. > > Not sure it's a placebo, but at least he's doing *something* to try to > alleviate the problem. His work may or may not be the best or complete > solution, but it is certain to lead us to a good solution faster than > doing nothing. Again, well-done to David for taking the initiative. Sometimes a bit more "thinking before acting" is necessary. I don't personally consider setting up a wiki a solution to PEAR's documentation problem but that's maybe just me. I was actually envisioning something more complex in terms of developments and better integrated into PEAR infrastructure. But I don't mind the wiki neither so we will see if anything positive comes out of that. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam