[Serusers] Re: [Serdev] rel_0_9_0 release critical bugs/missing things

[Java Rockx]

Hi All.

I'll toss in my US$0.02 worth.

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 
http://onsip.org/ which provide very good tutorials.

By the time a user gets through the onsip.org
<http://onsip.org>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.

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.

Full documentation for SER usage is probably better off on a site like 
onsip.org <http://onsip.org> where the focus is only on "how do I get SER to 
..."

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.

Regards,
Paul

On 6/21/05, Alberto Cruz <acruz at tekbrain.com> wrote:
> 
> Do you prefer to have streets and avenues with out signals?
> 
> Remember most of the members of this community and mebers list we are 
> users.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Alberto Cruz
> Jan Janak wrote:
> 
> On 21-06-2005 09:20, Juha Heinanen wrote:
>   
> 
>  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 iptel.org <http://iptel.org> policy.  no new features should
> be allowed to be added/changed in the code unless also the documentation
> is updated.
>     
> 
>    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 listserusers at lists.iptel.orghttp://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 
> 
>    
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20050621/d289fd03/attachment.htm>