@Mike - I tend to feel like the effort should be officially sanctioned in some way, but thanks for offering up a stopgap.
@whit - By "current documentation structure," do you mean inline documentation? As in, documentation that lives in line with the code? Where do we go from here? Does anybody else want to weigh in on this? Cheers! ~br On Nov 29, 3:08 pm, whit <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> > > > > > Anyway, it kinda seems like people like this concept provided that it > > doesn't impede the important task of development. I would hope that we > > could actually *add* value to the project, but I guess that will > > largely depend on how things get implemented. I got to thinking that > > github might be an easy way to accomplish what we want without too > > much overhead. We could have a repository of essays (maybe all in > > wikitext format, say) that folks can clone, add to, and submit pull > > requests to. Pull requests will be accepted only when the essays seem > > like they are up to snuff, and the issue tracker could be used for > > moderating. > > > Thoughts? > > or you could just use the current documentation structure. > > As documentation is a requirement (along with tests) for any feature, it > seems starting by writing the documentation of a feature (presumably in > a fork on a branch) would make a decent pep-like vehicle to gather > feedback. > > Then when a feature is accepted, the design defense, documentation and > implementation can be merged as a single history. > > -w > > -- > >>> > Whit Morriss > CodeMonkey > [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
