ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Russ Baker <rba...@NETdelivery.com>
Subject RE: Ant documentation (was: Re: javax.sql.DataSource(Thanks!!))
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:41:21 GMT
Exactly!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry V. Streepy, Jr. [mailto:streepy@healthlanguage.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:57 AM
To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Ant documentation (was: Re: javax.sql.DataSource(Thanks!!))


Ok, we all agree that it's a reference manual.

The point was previously made (and I apologize for not having the
author's name) that the manual seems sufficient for some people and not
for others.  I, for one, found the manual sufficient for getting a very
complex project build running.

Those that find it insufficient should offer updates to address the
points they found unclear or confusing.  IMO, that's the best way to
improve the documentation.  Most people involved are very focused on
getting new features coded.  Few people have the time to sit and review
the documentation and try to enhance it without specific feedback.

Simply saying the documentation sucks doesn't do any good.  Saying it
needs work on a specific area is better.  Providing suggested
documentation updates is better still.

This is an open source project after all.  Every moment I spend
developing code or documentation for Ant is donated time.  I don't get
paid for it.  I think everyone needs to keep that in mind and provide
constructive criticism, not just complaints.


Suu Quan wrote:
> 
> > > --- Suu Quan <squan@wwc.com> wrote:
> > > > Same here (not javadoc, but other tasks). It says a lot about the
> > > > quality of the documentation.
> > > > If I'm still not clear: I give a Failing grade for documentation.
> > >
> > > I completely disagree -- but maybe I'm too familiar with it at this
> point
> > > to be objective about it. Where, specifically, do you think it fails?
> > > (Keeping in mind that it's not intended to teach people Java, XML, or
> > > anything other than how to use Ant.)
> 
> Should call it a reference manual (and a bad one at it), not a user
manual.
> Where does it fail? I know java,xml,make .... you name it, unless I missed
> other prerequisites, and I can't make good use of it.
> Other people already filled other details.

-- 
Larry V. Streepy, Jr.
Chief Technical Officer and VP of Engineering

Health Language, Inc.  -- "We speak the language of healthcare"
A subsidiary of CyberPlus Corp.

970/626-5028 (office)           mailto:streepy@healthlanguage.com
970/626-4425 (fax)              http://www.healthlanguage.com

Mime
View raw message