On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:00:13PM +0100, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Oisin Glynn wrote:
>
> >I just discovered that the comments from 8.0 had the answer I was
> >looking for but these comments are not in the 8.1 docs. Should the
> >comments be rolled forward as new version
On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:12, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:00:13PM +0100, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Oisin Glynn wrote:
> >
> > >I just discovered that the comments from 8.0 had the answer I was
> > >looking for but these comments are not in the 8.1 docs
On Thursday 23 March 2006 15:12, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:00:13PM +0100, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Oisin Glynn wrote:
> > >I just discovered that the comments from 8.0 had the answer I was
> > >looking for but these comments are not in the 8.1 docs. S
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 23 March 2006 15:12, David Fetter wrote:
>> I'd like to make a Modest Proposalâ¢: Let's take down the interactive
>> documents and, in their place, put up a request that doc patches be
>> sent to -docs.
> I'd say you're anti-interactive comm
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 04:46:02PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > ...and it's unlikely that they will, now or later, without
> > somebody whose whole job is to monitor those comments and make
> > patches.
>
> Well, we do make some attempt at rolling comments into the docs
> where appropriate, but
On Thursday 23 March 2006 17:46, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 04:46:02PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > > ...and it's unlikely that they will, now or later, without
> > > somebody whose whole job is to monitor those comments and make
> > > patches.
> >
> > Well, we do make some att
