Re: PEAR Guide/Docs
| From: | Ernest E Vogelsinger | Date: | Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:55:47 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: PEAR Guide/Docs | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.pear.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-general+get-4452@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Just started delving into PEAR yesterday (using PHP for some time now), and
have to totally agreee with you regarding the documentation issue. Think of
what makes M$ big in languages? The Docs are. MFC is good but bloated
stuff, and .NET is nothing else than reinventing SOAP with words - but they
DOCUMENT everything to an extent that's still to be seen elsewhere.
At 11:42 27.03.2003, Ant-1 said:
--------------------[snip]--------------------
>team leaded by Stig. And that team wonn't let a package be released as
>stable when doc is missing.
--------------------[snip]--------------------
As for the "stable" status I vote for keeping it as-is, as it means a code
status. Code can stable (i.e. error-"free") even if no docs exist at all. I
opt for a "final", or "release", status that requires "stable" code,
and
"final" docs.
IMHO there should be a "PEAR documentation project", similar to the PHP and
Apache counterparts (pardon me if this already exists - as I said I just
began looking at PEAR yesterday).
--
>O Ernest E. Vogelsinger
(\) ICQ #13394035
^ http://www.vogelsinger.at/