From: Jonathan W. <jw...@ph...> - 2008-05-20 23:12:38
|
> > In rev 1192 you "remove development docs that are (partly) outdated". > > Amongst the things removed was > > doc/motu_firewire_protocol.txt > > This is not outdated - it reflects the current understanding of the MOTU > > protocol. Given the log entry I am therefore wondering why it has been > > removed from the 2.0 branch. Are such documents not "appropriate" for a > > release version? > > I really don't think development documentation has something to do in the > release-branch... > > Development goes on in trunk. The branch now only sees commits to fix bugs, > preferable bugs that have an entry in trac... See my previous email for other thoughts about this. Having said that, I guess my primary issue was that the log entry claimed "outdated" documents were removed and this confused me because the document in question was not outdated. If it had said something like "remove development documents which are of little use to normal users" then the intention would have been clearer to me. It's probably a language thing and certainly not worth spending time one. I just wanted to clarify what the intention actually was. Regards jonathan |
From: Pieter P. <pi...@jo...> - 2008-05-21 07:48:00
|
Jonathan Woithe wrote: >>> In rev 1192 you "remove development docs that are (partly) outdated". >>> Amongst the things removed was >>> doc/motu_firewire_protocol.txt >>> This is not outdated - it reflects the current understanding of the MOTU >>> protocol. Given the log entry I am therefore wondering why it has been >>> removed from the 2.0 branch. Are such documents not "appropriate" for a >>> release version? >> I really don't think development documentation has something to do in the >> release-branch... >> >> Development goes on in trunk. The branch now only sees commits to fix bugs, >> preferable bugs that have an entry in trac... > > See my previous email for other thoughts about this. > > Having said that, I guess my primary issue was that the log entry claimed > "outdated" documents were removed and this confused me because the document > in question was not outdated. If it had said something like "remove > development documents which are of little use to normal users" then the > intention would have been clearer to me. > > It's probably a language thing and certainly not worth spending time one. I > just wanted to clarify what the intention actually was. OK, sorry for the commit message. I was not thinking about the motu document when writing that. Greets, Pieter |