From: chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:51:05 -0800
On Sunday 03 February 2008 11:15:38 Bob Rogers wrote:
> The first 3/4 of this should get fleshed out and added to the docs,
> which I'd be happy to do. Is docs/running.pod a good place?
A few bits may be technical enough to belong under docs/dev/ somewhere, but
docs/running.pod is definitely a good place. +1
-- c
I couldn't find better place for any of it elsewhere, so I added it to
docs/running.pod in r25482. If somebody starts a technical description
of runcores (not me!), the technical bits can be moved there.
I also note that most (2 out of 3) places in the doc use "runcore",
but there are a few "run core" references (including glossary.pod), and
even one "run-core." I would like to change them all to "runcore",
since that is popular (and matches my personal bias). But, to be fair,
I notice that "run_core" outnumbers "runcore" in the code by 3 to 1. It
would be nice to have code & doc each internally consistent, and nicer
still to have them consistent with each other, but it is not clear how
much consistency is worth the trouble. WDOT?
-- Bob
