Re: Documentation question

[James Youngman]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Reuben Thomas <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 14 August 2010 16:46, Reuben Thomas <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 4 August 2010 09:54, James Youngman <address@hidden> wrote:

>>> I'm not sure the two options need to be exclusive.
>>
>> Fair enough, especially as it's machine generated, so the maintenance
>> problem I imagined is non-existent.
>>
>>> In any case, the current documentation is machine-generated by a C
>>> program in findutils.   You might want to download it; this should
>>> help you get some more specific ideas about what you propose to
>>> change.
>>
>> gnulib people: you seem to be unhappy with code-generated
>> documentation. How would you like to proceed?
>

[...]
> It seems that if James wants to keep the machine-generated English,
> then gnulib won't want to host the documentation. On the other hand,
> if he doesn't mind getting rid of it,

I'm happy to see the proposed replacement and then make the choice
about the switch.    I wouldn't be terribly keen on options that
increase my manual effort either though.   Manually reconciling doc
changes with another package is a bit of a pain.   Having it happen
automatically (via for example gnulib-tool) seems preferable to me.

James.