Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:07:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Document Gestation Process?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v472)
From: Diana Shannon <terracare@mac.com>
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <3997D874A598D51190A70002A56BC99502368590@TOCOMEXC17>
Message-Id: <40CBD3E8-5B8B-11D6-9666-0030653FE818@mac.com>


On April 29, 2002, Fabien wrote:

> I agree : having a doc in scratchpad for quick review, then having them
> moved to core doc even if not perfect, and adding patch from time to 
> time
> seems to be more realistic.

But how many people -- not committers -- actually submit patches for the 
documentation that exists? I'm just hoping to improve the quality of the 
docs, before they are even committed, as well give users more efficient 
ways to contribute.

> We must'nt forget that code is still moving and that the doc will have 
> to be
> patched anyway. (I even do not know if the current HEAD constructor of
> AbstractSAXSource need the Environnement object :) )

Yes, this is certainly true but not for *all* docs. Granted, 
documentation for an open source project is going to have a shorter 
lifecycle than other kinds of docs. However, I don't think it's a good 
excuse to have a loosely structured development effort. When code has 
holes, it breaks or performs unacceptably. People have a great incentive 
to fix it. When documentation has holes, potential users and evaluators 
give up. There's a much weaker incentive structure for fixing 
documentation. That's why I think we need to minimize these problems, as 
best we can, during initial development and not rely so much on 
maintenance.

Diana


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org