The Guide - again

[markd at macports.org]

>> Many of those tickets say "the guide should ..." and give not a lot of
>> helpful information.  Not all.  Ryan's doc tickets are particularly
>> helpful I should say.  But as an example of ones that will linger:
>> http://trac.macports.org/ticket/15784   Since the creator didn't 
>> give any
>> directly usable information, it will be awhile before that gets 
>> acted on.
>
>The creator of the ticket may not know how to document the option. 
>They may have just seen it in a portfile or portgroup or somewhere 
>and wondered what it was, and noted it was not described in the 
>guide. So it's right for them to ask for it to be documented.
>
>For tickets that say the guide should document something, without 
>saying how it should be documented, maybe a message should be sent to 
>macports-dev asking if anyone knows what the option does. For example 
>in the case of 15784, I don't know what "perl5.use_module_build" is / 
>does. Hopefully someone with more experience with the perl modules does.

I didn't mean to imply that that ticket shouldn't have been created.  I
just wanted to point out that there needs to be a distinction made between
requests for something to be documented and actual document contributions.
 Both are entirely legitimate, but they are seen and acted on differently.
 This is to be expected, and is no different than what happens with other
work in the project I think.

And I agree that a follow-up question should be asked or the dev list
asked about it if need be.  I've done this before.  I will be working on
these tickets very soon and clearing all tickets will help to pay more
attention to them as they come in.

Mark