Bill Lynch wrote:
I agree with Maurice but also agree with Mike.
BTW, I also agree with Mike. :-) I just wish that documentation wasn't
so necessary.
Oops, and I also meant to say your statement and Mike's weren't mutually
exclusive. ;)
I would be happy to contribute to this aspect. An
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Maurice Parker wrote:
> Joseph,
>
> >I don't know why; I've certainly posted early versions of it to the lists.
> >
> Because for a long time I wasn't reading the lists. My bad.
>
> We do need some kind of community page to make this, Mikes ramblings,
> blog entries, etc... av
Joseph,
I don't know why; I've certainly posted early versions of it to the lists.
Because for a long time I wasn't reading the lists. My bad.
We do need some kind of community page to make this, Mikes ramblings,
blog entries, etc... available. Maybe like Patrick mentioned a Wiki or
I wou
Bill Lynch wrote:
I agree with Maurice but also agree with Mike.
BTW, I also agree with Mike. :-) I just wish that documentation wasn't
so necessary.
I would be happy to contribute to this aspect. Any suggestions as to
how to start? I'm not a committer so I assume for now I should submit
I agree with Maurice but also agree with Mike. I think in addition to cleaning
up and simplifying what exists, a good deal of the focus for 2.0 should be
documentation. User docs are great but improvments in the JavaDocs also need to
be made. I'd grade the WW javadocs a B-/C+ because they're mos
tation.comIT Consultant
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 06:33:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Joseph Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Maurice C. Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] What a WebWork developer thinks. WAS:
documenta
On Sunday, November 3, 2002, at 09:28 PM, Francisco Hernandez wrote:
I found this in my bookmarks today, maybe you can use some of it or
contact
its author and collaborate?
http://enigmastation.com/~joeo/webwork.html
I'd never seen this doc before. I just wanted to comment on a sentence
in th
