Greetings,
* Daniel Gustafsson (daniel@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
