Hi All.<br>
<br>
I'll toss in my US$0.02 worth.<br>
<br>
IMHO, it is better to have _minmal_ documented code rather than no
code. My reasoning is simple. Full documentation will really delay the
stable release of 0.9.0 and for the "users" there are other
documentation projects such as <a href="http://onsip.org/">http://onsip.org/</a> which provide very
good tutorials.<br>
<br>
By the time a user gets through the <a href="http://onsip.org">onsip.org</a> documentation he/she
would hopefully be acclimated to the structure of SER and be able to
dig in to the source when looking for something.<br>
<br>
I'm not suggesting that the SER sources should remain undocumented. I
strongly agree that the README files should be updated, but the fact of
the matter is that the README files are only the "tip of the iceberg"
so to speak when it comes to really using SER. For example, the README
files generally do not describe when or where to use a particular
function.<br>
<br>
Full documentation for SER usage is probably better off on a site like
<a href="http://onsip.org">onsip.org</a> where the focus is only on "how do I get SER to ..."<br>
<br>
So I guess the point I'm really trying to make is that the README files
should probably be updated with _minimal_ notes of missing or
deprecated functions, but complete documentation on using SER should
not be a requirement to promoting SER 0.9.0 to stable.<br><br>
Regards,<br>
Paul<br>
<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/21/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Alberto Cruz</b> <<a href="mailto:acruz@tekbrain.com">acruz@tekbrain.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Do you prefer to have streets and avenues with out signals?<br>
<br>
Remember most of the members of this community and mebers list we are
users.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Alberto Cruz<br>
Jan Janak wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="http://mid20050621095818.GE4845@localhost.localdomain">
<pre>On 21-06-2005 09:20, Juha Heinanen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Greger V. Teigre writes:
> Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible now
> leading up to the release!!
nathelper README doesn't describe all nat_uac_test modes. tm module
README seems to lack description of several exported functions.
these both are example of bad <a href="http://iptel.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">iptel.org</a> policy. no new features should
be allowed to be added/changed in the code unless also the documentation
is updated.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre> Are you suggesting that commits should be rejected if they do not
update documentation as well ? What is better, having undocumented
code or having no code ?
Jan.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
<a href="mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">serusers@lists.iptel.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>Serusers mailing list<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:serusers@lists.iptel.org">serusers@lists.iptel.org</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers" target="_blank">
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>