At 11:26 pm, Wednesday, May 1 2002, Julian Gilbey mumbled: > That sounds like a fabulous idea. What I would *really* like to see > happen (and help with), post-woody, is something like the annotated C > reference manual, which has the standard clearly identified, but lots > of extra bits of rationale, examples, best practices and so on. In > this way, we get the best of both worlds: we can create a clean > standards-only document by some simple selective processing (ignore > all extra sections when processing, or something like that), and meet > the most frequent complaint about the old policy + packaging manual: > they contradict, and I have to look in two documents. > > I've been thinking of having a merged policy/packaging manual for a > while, but suddenly realised when I read your mail above that this > might be the ideal way to do it to provide the best for everyone. > > Thoughts? > I like the idea. You can persue the lean version when you need the answer in a hurry, and read the meat later, when you have time. Would both documents be in the same package? *sigh*, I get too distracted. I am willing to proofread, help, prune and provide 'best' practises. Policy-rewrite needs a disclaimer: "Warning: Best is subjective." :-) -- Steve <ElectricElf> Anyone have a favorite low-overhead remote filesystem protocol? (NFS and Samba are, of course, options) <DanielS> ElectricElf: it's like asking "what is the least painful method of castration involving a rusty fishing wire"
Attachment:
pgpEae0fQjdEf.pgp
Description: PGP signature