[arc-discuss] Re: ARC case info broken on OS.o?

[Bart Smaalders]

John Plocher wrote:
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
>> You're welcome to suggest mechanisms; I was repeatedly told that
>> that the ARC insists on having copies of all the material since
>> external web pages could change at any time.
> 
> 
> My comment was that y'all chose the wrong material to use as a
> reference spec.  You could have also submitted the source code
> for the project as well; it still wouldn't have been appropriate
> ARC fasttrack spec material :-)
> 
> Since you classified the entire language and extentions as
> Uncommitted, with the intent to track the community no matter
> what direction it went, it would have been sufficient (in my
> mind) to simply have a list of the function names (a table of
> contents page, maybe) instead of the thousands and thousands
> of pages of docs.
> 
> Since you hopefully didn't expect ARC members to read it, it
> serves no value to create it, provide it or archive it.  (On
> the other hand, if you /did/ expect them to to read it, the
> case shouldn't have been filed as a fasttrack because it would
> then fail the "simple and obvious" clause...)
> 
>   -John
> 

I suggest that telling project teams to generate custom
"lightweight" docs for open source docs is an waste
of time and money.  There were over 5000 functions in the
php documentation; do you think the ARC members will read 500
pages of function specifications?


- Bart







-- 
Bart Smaalders			Solaris Kernel Performance
barts at cyber.eng.sun.com		http://blogs.sun.com/barts