Forgive me if I am looking in the wrong place for some of this stuff. I
only started looking at this today.
--- Michael Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm fine with that, I understand why - this is not a rant - but I do
think that Parrot has a steep learning curve and that good
Forgive me if I am looking in the wrong place for some of this stuff. I
am quite new to this.
--- Michael Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm fine with that, I understand why - this is not a rant - but I do
think that Parrot has a steep learning curve and that good
documentation is
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Harry Jackson wrote:
I have also been unable to find out if there is any sort of methodolgy
to the testing. I have had a look through ./parrot/t/* and found a lot
of test files but very little actual details on what each test was
testing. I could infer from the code what
Just a reminder for new checkins. Please make sure there is
a minimum of a header comment for each routine you checkin
describing just what the heck the routine does.
Debugging certain parts of Parrot has become akin to mapping out
a rabbit hole using marking flares.
For example, just picking a
snip ...too much undocumentation going on.
One of the reasons I started putting stuff on the wiki was because I
could see that updating documentation was not a high priority.
On the wiki I neither have to have CVS checkin rights, nor do I have to
wait for someone with those rights to act upon
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Michael Scott wrote:
I'd like to volunteer myself as official Parrot documentation person -
a semi-autonomous process with clearly defined protocols and goals -
and the necessary rights to achieve them.
I'm happy to expand on what I mean by that - if I get a response.
At 08:10 PM 11/13/2003 +0100, Michael Scott wrote:
snip ...too much undocumentation going on.
One of the reasons I started putting stuff on the wiki was because I could
see that updating documentation was not a high priority.
On the wiki I neither have to have CVS checkin rights, nor do I have
