Dear All, I think the below link is a very good starting point for ns2 users. Although it is for ns-2.29, it can serve good for those who wish to make changes inside C++ codes.
http://www.auto-nomos.de/ns2doku/ Is it possible to create documentation like above for ns-2.33/2.34 as well as for ns-3? Thanks, Joarder Mohammad Mustafa Kamal --- On Sat, 12/20/08, Tom Henderson <t...@tomh.org> wrote: From: Tom Henderson <t...@tomh.org> Subject: Re: [ns] NS manual to wiki To: "Lachlan Andrew" <land...@swin.edu.au> Cc: ns-users@ISI.EDU Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 2:52 AM Lachlan Andrew wrote: > Greetings all, > > The NS manual seems rather out of date. (There are comments from 2001 > about "changes in the near future", and snippets of code that have > changed radically, and references to files that no longer exist.) > > I have started copying the contents from the PDF to the wiki, at > <http://nsnam.isi.edu/nsnam/index.php/NS_manual>, with the hope that > the community can keep it more up-to-date. > > Does this seem useful, or is the "manual" seen as no longer important? > If it is useful, would anyone like to volunteer to help? :) Lachlan, Thanks for taking the initiative to do that. But I'd like to ask whether the real issue is the markup (tex vs wiki) or the accessibility to make changes, or whether the issue is that no one wants to update the documentation. Because it would be a shame for you or anyone to invest a lot of resources in a migration if the result would be the same. Personally, I have been updating manual chapters as new things were checked in (see the wifi updates in section 16.3) and asking new contributors to write manual chapters (see section 43 for Tmix). But, I realize there are large portions of the manual written over 8 years ago that have not been maintained. Are there people in the community who would be more inclined to update documentation if the contents were on the wiki (please speak up)? Or is that not the real issue? - Tom
