On May 29, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 29 May 2012, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > >>> Each branch different, 2.2 & 2.4 have some big differences between >>> them in various areas. My 2 cents anyway. >> What I'm perhaps more curious to get sorted out is whether we should >> consider the trunk and the 2.4 documentation separate entities, or >> whether they should be linked, comment-wise. Currently, they are pretty >> much identical, but in the future it may be a good idea to keep them >> separate as we move towards 2.5/2.6. > > My gut feel is that trunk shouldn't have comments at all - trunk is fluid, > and changes without warning. Comments are very likely to get stale and become > more of a problem than a help.
I've come around to thinking that they should be separate. I think it'll be useful to have comments on trunk, but, particularly on trunk, there needs to be no expectation that comments will stick around for any time at all. In my view of this, comments should *not* be considered a permanent part of the document. Either they get incorporated into the document itself, or they get flushed. I really don't want to see comments sticking around forever on a doc. I consider them to be more of a means of contributing to the doc effort. -- Rich Bowen rbo...@rcbowen.com :: @rbowen rbo...@apache.org
