Alex, Sounds like a good plan - so, lets get the ball rolling... what topics are lacking and what need completly rewriting?
Part of me is happy to disregard the entire wiki content and just draw up a list of what needs documenting, then as a community we can hopefully move forward and get some of this written down. So, im all ears - what do you guys want to see? Cheers, Tim On Jul 14, 6:12 pm, Alex Cruise <a...@cluonflux.com> wrote: > The approach I'd humbly suggest for improving the wiki is to focus on > example coverage, which in some ways is to documentation what code > coverage is to code. Specifically, for every substantial feature of > lift, is it demonstrated in some clear way in an example that's as > simple and comprehensible as possible? > > For most of these (feature, example) tuples there will be some example > code but no corresponding wiki page. Any sufficiently smart person who > reads the example code can write up a quick and dirty wiki page that > outlines the structure of the sample, then annotate it with questions > for committers about the motivation or other background for the specific > details of the example. Then, when each one of these example pages is > alpha quality, post the URL to the list and the rest of us can > criticize/edit it. :) > > I find that for forensic documentation projects like this one, it's > easiest to hit the ground running when you start by documenting > extremely concrete use cases, then work your way "up" to architecture by > observing patterns in the examples. > > -0xe1a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
