Greetings, * Daniel Gustafsson (dan...@yesql.se) wrote: > I am writing done above in quotes, since the documentation also needs to be > updated, completed, rewritten, organized etc etc. The above is an import of > what was found, and is in a fairly poor state. Unfortunately, it's still not > in the tree where I personally believe documentation stands the best chance of > being kept up to date. The NSPR documentation is probably the best of the > two, > but it's also much less of a moving target.
I wonder about the 'not in tree' bit since it is in the header files, certainly for NSPR which I've been poking at due to this discussion. I had hoped that they were generating the documentation on the webpage from what's in the header files, is that not the case then? Which is more accurate? If it's a simple matter of spending time going through what's in the tree and making sure what's online matches that, I suspect we could find some folks with time to work on helping them there. If the in-tree stuff isn't accurate then that's a bigger problem, of course. > It is true that the documentation is poor and currently in bad shape with lots > of broken links and heavily disorganized etc. It's also true that I managed > to > implement full libpq support without any crystal ball or help from the NSS > folks. The latter doesn't mean we can brush documentation concerns aside, but > let's be fair in our criticism. Agreed. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
