Quoting chibul:

Quote:
You mind taking this somewhere else? I didn't start this thread to listen to the two of you bitch at each other.

Sorry, my first post in this thread was about the subject. Then Skip jumped on me, as he sees red everytime I write something...

And another one of those by Vibro....


and by me as well, so now this can stop, right?

To get back to topic:

Since we've never defined the proper way of documentation (the general means are somewhat clear, but luckily we've never gotten to the point of carving the exact way in stone), any kind of documentation is first and foremost as good as the next. As long as the provided documentation is able to prove the correctness of the data submitted, it's absolutely ok and fine with me.

And normally I do believe every contributor to tell the truth in their notes, up until the point when I personally catch them lying in their notes, from which moment on I'll regard every future contribution by this user with extreme scrutiny.

So, if I belive the contributor to tell the truth, the documentation provided by Chibul would've been more than enough for me to vote "Yes" for this contribution. Demanding more detailed documentation than that is taking it a bit too far IMO, if I mistrust the notes it is MY responsibility to check them for correctness. If I don't want to spend the time, I can't tell the contributor it's necessary to provide more detailed information, just because I personally don't trust his valid sources for personal reasons not justified by the user's general behavior.

Quoting Darxon:

Quote:
And another one of those by Vibro....


and by me as well, so now this can stop, right?

To get back to topic:

Since we've never defined the proper way of documentation (the general means are somewhat clear, but luckily we've never gotten to the point of carving the exact way in stone), any kind of documentation is first and foremost as good as the next. As long as the provided documentation is able to prove the correctness of the data submitted, it's absolutely ok and fine with me.

And normally I do believe every contributor to tell the truth in their notes, up until the point when I personally catch them lying in their notes, from which moment on I'll regard every future contribution by this user with extreme scrutiny.

So, if I belive the contributor to tell the truth, the documentation provided by Chibul would've been more than enough for me to vote "Yes" for this contribution. Demanding more detailed documentation than that is taking it a bit too far IMO, if I mistrust the notes it is MY responsibility to check them for correctness. If I don't want to spend the time, I can't tell the contributor it's necessary to provide more detailed information, just because I personally don't trust his valid sources for personal reasons not justified by the user's general behavior.

On a general level, I agree with you.  However, we all know that people don't give the same level of confidence to everybody who posts.  There are certain people who post that I feel I can trust so I never check their stuff, and there are others that I scrutinize in detail every time.  That's a fact of life. So, the only way to be fair to everybody with documentation is to require that it be verifiable, and that we provide that information in our contribution notes.  That means that for some people the notes are excessive, but for others not enough. 

This is exactly the sort of problem that you get when you start adding people into the cast list who aren't credited.  Even when its a legit add-on, as this case appears to be, if the documentation isn't up to standard all it does is create more problems.  And THAT is what is truly a waste of everyone's time.