On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Georg Baum wrote: > > Except delaying it of course... > > Maybe. Of course we get delays if lfuns need to be discussed on the list, > but that is independent from the documentation format. If we don't want > that we should freeze the lfun documentation until 1.4.0 is released.
Would it be ok to send questions about lfuns to the devel-list? Or are we better served by not distracting the developers with this? > Then we get delays if somebody without CVS access wants patches to be > applied, but that could be minimized if e.g. Christian has CVS access. I don't have CVS access, but that's probably a minor detail. Anyway, my feeling is that we'd be better off starting with a separate documentation for the lfuns - mainly because it'd be quite easy to actually get started. We could create the bulk of the documentation this way, and then later on store it in the source in a suitable manner. The remaining question is then if asking questions about the lfuns would be too distracting (I don't think so, but I'd better ask). /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
