Re: Announcing JGNAT public version 1.0p

[Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>]

In article <seg4ssgaeop7@corp.supernews.com>,
  "John Merryweather Cooper" <jmcoopr@webmail.bmi.net> wrote:
> Oh, I agree totally!  I did read it.  But I was STILL curious
> what it would do.  So, I tried it.  :)  (What the ****, I have
> both versions installed . .
> .)  I'm guilty of being "redundant," but I thought it was an
> important aspect to test.  Unfortunately, I've seen way too
> much documentation that has little to do with reality or the
> current state of affairs with a particular piece of software.
> It's nice to have things confirmed.

Indeed, it is often difficult to make sure documentation keeps
up with software. But the readme files are generally highly
accurate since they are prepared for specific releases.

For the main GNAT documentation, we have found that it is
very helpful that the documentatin source is ASCII (texi) and
checked into the same repositories as the sources. This means
that developers can modify and update the documentation using
the same procedures as they use for the sources. This does not
of course guarantee that it gets done, but it is a very useful
step forward compared to situations where the documentation is
kept in a completely different form, with limited access by
specialized documentation folks. We used to keep our
documentation in Frame, which made it look a bit nicer, but
made if very hard to keep up to date.

Robert Dewar


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.