Either commit to keeping documentation rigorously up to date, or save yourself the effort to write it. With code it's easy: keep the documentation in the same repository as your code and make documentation an integral part of the review process.
-
-
Replying to @stefanobaghino
I would actually suggest the opposite: keep documentation in a different repository so that it's easier to update at any time. Documentation almost always follows code, so when it's in the same repo, it's difficult to hold up a release because the docs aren't ready.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @propensive
I believe that having atomic commits that bind together production code, testing code and documentation (along with other necessary artifacts—e.g. deployment scripts) is the only way to keep documentation up to date. If the docs are outdated, they'll cause a bad user experience.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stefanobaghino
I think it would be nice, but too difficult to achieve. If a method is discovered to be buggy after release, there's no way to tell users that in the version of the documentation that's in that release. Documentation needs to evolve to be kept up-to-date...
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @propensive
But with that approach the only right thing to do is to delay documentation until the software is dead stable, unmaintained, unsupported. You raise an important point, but I believe this is a concern orthogonal with respects to documentation (continues).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No, I don't think there's that constraint: I propose coding and documenting in parallel, and independently. Release the code when it's ready, and keep releasing the docs continuously for all versions you care about. Tools should help with this, though.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.