Peter,
I agree with almost all of your points. The only ones that I disagree with
are:
> observation of the changelog indicates, leaving javadoc out vs.
> adding javadoc has not made the development any faster.
I disagree, in a way that you'll like. I think that accurate javadocs
facilitates development.
> I also suggested that the internal documentation be tied to a release
because:
> i) That way it actually gets done
Only because you want to get it done. Practically, it just doesn't work
that way. Developers already have access to the current code, so if they
don't care about the javadocs, holding a release up isn't an incentive for
them to do it. And you don't need the incentive, you are doing it anyway.
> ii) When the release announcement spurs a few developers to take a look
> at the code base, they'll find a well-documented, inviting code base.
I support that goal.
As I said in another e-mail, let's put out a 2.1a2 Milestone Build to
replace the ancient May 30 2.1a1 Milestone, and I'll feel much better for
our end users.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
