On 5/6/21 8:08 AM, Ash Holsenback wrote:
> On 5/6/21 7:51 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>> On 5/6/21 7:37 AM, Ash Holsenback wrote:
>>> On 5/6/21 7:35 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
>>>> I second your thought not enough detail about the caching got into
>>>> the documentation. At least, I've never run across it - those beta
>>>> change notes are there, but that is not where most will look for
>>>> documentation of the output file caching.
>>> i do not... y'all were just looking in the wrong place
>> Perhaps we do disagree. :-) I was aware of the documentation to which
>> you pointed us.
>> I believe our documentation would be better if somewhere it included
>> everything in those beta release notes about output file caching -
>> after the first paragraph. Those realease notes are well written and
>> clear with several useful tips. I believe our documentation today
>> describes switches with not enough about implications and use -
>> information in those release to release notes.
> isn't that covered in changes.txt and / or revision.txt
Technically, sure... :-(
In stating this you are saying to use POV-Ray well, users must also read
/ remember 'all' of the POV-Ray recorded history in those files...
History which waffles and changes during development and over time.
History which isn't in anyway sorted/indexed and which in the long term
- for any software - is as often confusing as not to users post
release(1) and so I'd argue bordering on useless to other than
developers sometimes needing the long tangled view to understand the
state of code.
Post release, what is useful to us as users should be in the
documentation for that release even if duplicated! If in alpha/beta
releases and for users on the cutting edge - one can say that they must
read the release notes to know what's going on because it might not yet
be in the documentation.
(1) - Something I believe we got wrong moving post v3.7 release is that
we didn't restart the changes.txt and revision.txt files. This
especially true after we decided the v3.7.1 release was really a v3.8
Anyhow, my opinion. We disagree. :-)
Post a reply to this message