Re: API documentation requirements for next releases

[Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>]

On 12/1/05, Federico Mena Quintero <federico ximian com> wrote:
> > This doesn't quite look like Murray's proposal to me[1] --
> > configuration files, GConf keys, etc. didn't seem to be covered by my
> > understanding.  Not sure how best to handle that.  Thoughts?
>
> Effectively, GConf keys and configuration files become part of the
> public interface --- we still need to handle lock-down.  So we need
> documentation for them.  Or if a GConf key is private, it should also be
> marked as such.

I agree that it's a good thing, I was just worried that there'd be an
uproar when the official requirement looked like it didn't match the
proposal people tacitly agreed to.  The response, however, looked
fairly tame (with only Daniel commenting something along the lines of
the process looking broken yet saying he was willing to do it anyway),
so it looks like my worries may have been unfounded.

Thanks for pushing this and putting up with my nitpicking and worrying,
Elijah