[AFS3-std] Request for Comments: Abandoning RFC Editor Process

[chas williams - CONTRACTOR]

i would agree with this.  since afs doesnt really have any other
"complete" implementations it doenst seem like it is a good idea to
divorce the code from the documentation of the code at this time.
doing this will only lead to updates to the code and a failure to
document the updates.

bos (for example) was updated to have the set/get restrict rpc.  the
pod documentation was updated (hooray!) but this new rpc didnt get
documented.  perhaps if .xg used doxygen (like the rest of afs) this
would have been documented as a side effect of simply adding the rpc to
the .xg file itself.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:44:46 -0400 (EDT)
"Matt W. Benjamin" <matt@linuxbox.com> wrote:

> agree.
> 
> ----- "Derrick Brashear" <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > yes please. 
> > 
> > Derrick
> > 
> > 
> > On Aug 30, 2012, at 17:29, Jeffrey Altman
> > <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 8/30/2012 5:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> > > 
> > >> To that end, I'd like to explcitly ask for comments on the notion
> > of
> > >> abandoning the RFC-Editor process entirely, in favor of publishing
> > all
> > >> of our "experimental" and "standard" documents on a web site
> > maintained
> > >> by this group (and specifically, by the chairs or their
> > delegate(s)).
> > > 
> > > I wish you had started a new thread for this question as I suspect
> > it
> > > will get lost in this one but
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > AFS3-standardization mailing list
> > AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> > http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
>