Would you please explain: 1. What benefit would full FNP docs be to ANYTHING at this point? 2. What is wrong with the current FCP docs?
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:52:45PM +0100, Newsbyte wrote: > "While documentation of FNP has always lagged behind development as it > has in-effect been a work in progress for the past few years," > > Translation: we are *always* in a work of progress, so our documentation is > always going to be obsolete. > > " FCP has always been reasonably well specified. " > > Translation: The meager and obsolete documentation we do have, we'll > describe as 'reasonably well specified', such as to counter all the requests > for it in a more easy way then actually creating the necessary docs. > > "Specs do not yet exist for FCP in 0.7 because FCP in 0.7 is still > under development." > > Translation: We don't do specs before a release, and we don't do it > afterwards. This is, because first it is still under development, and (see > first argument) later it's always a work in progress. So, basically, we > never do it right. > > > "How do you expect us to document FCP in 0.7 before we have even > settled on the requirements for it?" > > Translation: We don't know what we're going to implement, and can only try > it out first, and then decide what specifications we're going to use, once > it's finished. *cough* If it weren't a work in progress then, that is. > > > "Instead of moaning that "someone should do this" or "someone should do > that", why not do something useful and offer to help us develop a > spec?" > > Translation: Shut up and do it yourself. People who have criticism or point > something out are whiners who we don't have to listen too, because they > don't contribute anything, and are in general trolls, because they don't > deliver any code. Exept when we are out of money or need testers, ofcourse, > then they are welcome, but we can call them non-contributing moaning whiners > afterwards anyway. > > > "Very little happens in open source projects unless people are > willing to take responsibility for getting things done themselves, > rather than just asking others why it isn't happening." > > Translation: With a good-sounding generalisation and a long one-liner, I > make the irrational assumption palatable that non-coders should create the > code, so the devls themselves are absolved from any effort in making the > specs more accesible for other potential devs, which would make Freenet a > more popular program for third party tools/devls and ultimately for the > public at large. Instead, we just say they have to do it themselves, knowing > full well it's actually a coders' job, but it helps in delegating our > responsability to Freenets' ordinary users, especially those who dare to > criticise. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -- 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/20051201/ce4b59c9/attachment.pgp>
