<Pierre van Rooden:> > There is no (easy accesible) facility for documenting hacks/proposals > on the site yet, so I feel we should be a bit leanient in this regard, > until the bugtracker works and a hack documentation feature is > implemented (you are welcome to do so, I myself am a bit short on > time).
In that case I would like the MMC to address these issues at their next meeting. Some suggestions:- Create a separate directory for hack documentation in the CVS "html" module, and provide a link to the directory on the website. That way all comitters can make their hack documentation available, and it is easy to keep up to date.- I think it is a waste of time to make our own bugtracker (and it's not even working). There are fine products available already, e.g. Bugzilla. >Also, sinse this regards taglib documentation, the documentation > will be present in the taglib tld field (and thus, on mmbase.org) but > obviously this can only be placed there when the hack is approved. Yes, it would be perfectly acceptable to me too if documentation to be inserted into the taglib documentation would have been supplied in advance. > Motivation: The parameter names may be confusing with regards to the > cloud tag attributes that mean something different, so I would suggest > to use different parameters: name, authenticate, login, and pwd. I agree on this, it is to be preferred to use the same parameter naming as the "cloud" tag. > Please note that casting a VETO without sufficient motivation is a > violation of the committor rules. It is hard to judge what is > 'sufficient', but badly written (though present) documentation is > borderline IMO. I was refering to insufficient documentation, which is worse than just badly written IMO. Rob van Maris
