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