Kicking off billing scipt in accounting block

[Alan DeKok]

Chris wrote:
> Then when someone cuts and pastes a default config module to modify,
> they just might key into the fact that they need to define an sql module
> named x-sql-module without having to go to the documentation at all.

  I disagree.  Given 10 years of history on this list, if you tell
people to create an "sql1" instance of the "sql" module, they'll write
"sql1 sql1 { ...", and then wonder why it doesn't work.  This has
already happened any number of times.

  Not many people do this, of course.  Most read the documentation and
figure it out.   But a persistent vocal minority does exactly this.
Adding more documentation to help them is largely a waste of time.

> You know, before deploying this time around I searched for a way to make
> a monetary contribution and came up empty.  I then decided I would wait
> for the book and buy that but there isn't one.

  You honestly can't be serious.  Is this some kind of joke?  Really?

  There are contributions other than money.  Code patches or
documentation patches are always welcome (subject to review, of course).
 Claiming that you could only contribute money is nonsense.

> I might very well take the time to make these changes to the default
> config and submit patches, but it'd obviously be a waste of time because
> you've already determined such changes are useless, or at least not
> *useful*.

  Yes... the fact that I disagree with you, and have historical evidence
to back up my position is evidence that you shouldn't contribute.

> Actually, I said the software was a "gem".  It's the "config file
> comments as a substitute for documentation" that sucks.

  So... submit documentation.  Documentation that will *help*.  But
adding a third or fourth copy of existing documentation in a different
form doesn't count.

  Sorry.  I want to make the server *better*.  I don't want four copies
of the same piece of documentation.

  Alan DeKok.