[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re[4]: [kDev] Which software license? A way forward...



On Jun 07, 2004, at 6:21 pm, Kyrian wrote:
There doesn't seem to be anything explicit on the Wiki (although it is
part of the GPL I think) to say that the documentation and license for
kendra software should be distributed with it,

It's not on the wiki because no one has put it down as a requirement. If you think it needs to be a requirement then by all means put it on the wiki. That's what it's there for...

it's obvious in the case
of the license, but we're sure as hell going to need some documentation
to go with this thing if we want to entice users to, err, use it, and
encourage onward development outside of the kendra foundation, and the
developers on this list.

Right, and we're also going to need some clear documentation describing what we need developed and how we are structuring the project and timelines and project plans. And if you think *these* things aren't on the wiki (or only partially so) and you have an idea about what these things could be or even a list of questions that need to be asked in order to create these things then feel free to whack it on the wiki too.

On the subject, this would seem to be a good starting point for
documenting the API of various parts of the code, it being an automated
API documentation generator for Python: http://epydoc.sourceforge.net/

OK, so, I sense there many levels of documentation here. I'm primarily concerned with the requirements for a software project being stated in a clear and structured way *before* we *start* coding. Or, as we've been discussing recently, the requirements for the license *before* we choose one.

But what you're talking about, correct me if I'm wrong, is documenting code after it's been created.

Have you any thoughts on specification/requirements documentation so that people can agree on what the aims are before we take any action? I'd be most interested in that.

Oh, and as for user documentation, I seem to be writing a hell of a lot
of it lately, so I suppose I could take the lead in writing/vetting/etc.
that when the time comes.

As far as I can see the time is now. Kev, your time has come!

Little or nothing of the above seems to fit into the Wiki as-is right
now,

Kev, the wiki is there for *you* to do as you wish with it. I encourage *you* to make it your own. If you see something lacking then make it good. No need to wait for me or anyone else to OK. Your wish is your command.

Once you've put something up then we can discuss it and play with it, yes?

OK. Perhaps I shouldn't have suggested the *way* in which we all work on the wiki but all I've really been saying in these latest threads is "work on the wiki"... We need documentation of these great ideas that are coming up right now on this list but they get lost in the quagmire because they are not documented. Have I said that before somewhere?

so I'm hoping Dan's going to play nice in response to this email
;-)

One slip and I'm tarred for life! ;-)

Cheers Daniel