On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:49:17PM +0100, Newsbyte wrote: > Toad, look at http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=docs > > Are you seriously arguing those are up-to date, detailed quality-specs?
You have a specific concern? Or at least an example of a deficiency in the FCP specs? > > Look at http://wikiserver.freenethelp.org:14741/SpecDocs > > Are those up-to date, detailed quality specs? No. There are no up to date 0.7 FNP specs. There are no up to date FNP specs full stop. So what? > > If people, even potential coders, are complaining about the specs, and you > would agree the specs are, indeed, neither detailed, nor up-to-date, nor > quality specs, then isn't it sensible to put some effort into it, now that > the 0.7 version comes about? > > Am I the one to fill in the details of the specs and what is needed, and > not? No, that is exactly the job of a coder, or at least someone with enough > hard-core knowledge about the program to make something really good and > useful. Even I can see the spec docs on the wiki aren't much of spec docs, > but I can't help you in saying what exactly needs to be created, or added or > changed into what. If I could do that, I could as well make the spec-docs > myself, then. > > But it doesn't mean that the spec-docs don't need a major overhaul (well, > actually, we should concentrate on the 0.7 version now). I have every intention of providing useful, comprehensive 0.7 FCP docs, when there is something to connect to. > > I don't feel like going into a diatribe about it like with Ian. All I ask, > is that you (or someone you feel is up to the job) put some real effort for > and into the new specs, so that potential devls don't have to complain about > the lack or the quality of it. As I've done before; I'm willing to help as > much as I can (as a non-coder), such as copying the texts you indicate could > be useful, and concentrating and cleaning them out a bit. But it can't be > helped that you, or someone else knowledgeable, *will have to* put some > extra work into it, to actually make them into quality-specs. And this not > in the 'when it's not a work-in-progress anymore' way, because that, as > history has shown us, can take years, and meanwhile other coders are waiting > (or try to figger out themselves, which sometimes succeedes, but which is a > pain in the butt anyway). Once you have actually decided what to use, you > should start working on it - you already began the first steps months ago > (see the wiki). After 3 more months, you are not claiming things have become > less decided then they first were, I hope? > > What I am saying is this: it would be of great benefit to the project if > detailed quality specs were made. If you believe the current specs are just > that, then fine - but be honest with yourself in this. If you would be an > outside devl, trying to do something useful with freenet, or maybe even > getting a grip on the inner workings, would you feel the specs are > elaborate, detailed, up-to date? Or would you consider them in need of some > overhauling? Now that we start with the new 0.7 version, it's time to make > exellent specs, and in a timely fashion, me thinks. I don't see why detailed FNP specs would be a major aid to anyone except the guy trying to rewrite Fred in assembler language. Even if you know what it's supposed to do, on the protocol level, you don't know HOW it is supposed to do it. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051205/3feb6e01/attachment.pgp>
