- Original Message -
From: "Tom Jordahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: When adding new function
>
> Glyn wrote:
> > Also, I wonder if we should be consistently using the cvs contents such
So I have the following work items for the specified commit:
a) code,
done.
b) user documentation,
n/a
c) design/architecture documentation,
We don't really have a section for mapping stuff. I can work with Glyn on this and submit text per Tom's request.
d) new or updated samples,
Glyn wrote:
> Also, I wonder if we should be consistently using the cvs contents such as
> the docs to describe facts and the cvs commit logs to summarise *changes*
> to the facts? I don't like seeing useful design notes get 'hidden' in cvs
> logs.
Glyn and I must be on the same wavelength today
>Not only do I agree, I would VOTE on getting **significant**
>changes/function documented (rough would be find) and APPROVED
>before implementing.
I agree in principle, but I wouldn't like to commit speculative design
changes into cvs and then seek approval as this would render the cvs
document
Not only do I agree, I would VOTE on getting **significant**
changes/function documented (rough would be find) and APPROVED before
implementing. That would alleviate some of the tension between (at times)
conflicting goals within the development community, and set out a road-map
for other volunte
