Re: [MMXX-dev] New stuff

[Luca R. <lj...@us...>]

On 5/2/2000 10:42 AM, Frank V. Castellucci (fr...@co...) 
shared his wisdom:

>As I said, your call, it's ok by me the way you distribute with the exception
>of one thing, if the directory could expand to MMXX-X.Y.Z or whatever release
>numbering/identification schema you are using. This way (assuming the
>makefiles work off relative locations) testing could occur in the new release
>location, and if the user/developer feels good about it they can just rename
>the directory.

Good idea, absolutely. Will make sure I do it from d5 onwards.

>I agree it requires discipline to keep it current, but a notice in the
>release notes that something has changed in regards to signatures, method
>names, etc. is adequate to let the users know this.

Yes, very much so. Once we finalize the various identifier names, we'll 
adopt
some form a Changelog scheme.

>Also consider, now being better than later, in using a comment tagging that
>is recognized by tools like doc++ or doxygen or whatever. I say now because
>you won't have alot of reworking to do.

Interesting, I'll have to look into these since I've never used them.

>> BTW, if you ask questions here on the list I'd be happy to answer them.
>> That way there's a record of at least some of the confusing aspects, and
>> the bits and pieces that come through here might become part of a FAQ
>> later.
>
>Err, I assume you were making this statement for the general public as I
>thought I posted on the list, neh?

Yes, that was intended for everyone, but I also meant to encourage you to
ask "dumb" how-does-this-work type questions if it saves you hours of
digging through the source code. :-)

Ciao!
Luca