<html><body>
<p><tt><font size="2">annegentle@justwriteclick.com wrote on 07/17/2014 08:19:57 AM:<br>
<br>
> I've been starting to think that there ought to be various <br>
> infrastructure (or an "under the covers") <br>
> guides, because I've been finding places where, while the existing <br>
> documentation is essentially correct,<br>
> they are incomplete in terms of the details of what exactly is happening. <br>
> <br>
> Adding such details would risk cluttering up the existing document <br>
> (as you've noted) and such<br>
> a set of guides could both provide deeper insight into how <br>
> particular components work and provide <br>
> a natural landing space for documentation such as this. <br>
</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">> <br>
> Ryan, who's the audience for this type of under the covers doc? Are <br>
> they likely to read the code anyway to get the real story? It's <br>
> difficult to keep up with the under the covers story -- especially <br>
> when we don't have full coverage on the covers. :)</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">I wasn't thinking of developers (I hope that they'll be reading the code),</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">but more the folks in quality assurance/testing/field support who likely</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">won't have the time to RTSC but need to some understanding of what is</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">happening when a particular command is issued or operation is performed.</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Yes, I understand the coverage problem :( - that's why I'm still in the "starting</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">to think" mode and wondering how useful this would be.</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Ryan</font></tt></body></html>