Re: [talk] why it'd be great to have web interface for submitting simple doc patches

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 10/06/2012 04:46 PM, James wrote:
> Says someone who evidently has never built, submitted or tested 'doc'
> patches for LP.

Er ... yes, I have.  Actually my objections to having to use git-cl were based 
on my experience of trying to submit a simple, small doc patch that I'd built 
and tested.  It felt a rather hefty and complicated amount of stuff to do 
compared to simply emailing someone a set of patches, or submitting a merge 
request on GitHub.

> I think you perception of what we do and why is skewed.

Well, I can see that it's important to test that doc patches _build_ OK, but I 
don't see how the code test suite is relevant to documentation.  But I'm sorry 
if I've overlooked something here.

> So does poorly submitted documentation suggestions, but hey.. *anyone*
> can write documentation right? With clear understanding, good syntax,
> spelling, sentence structure and oh and good lilypond examples.
> Easy-peasy.

... but as you and I both know, writing correct TeXinfo that builds without 
error is not quite so simple.  I do know what that entails, and I do ensure that 
any patches I submit build correctly.

If I've missed some important aspect of testing which _is_ relevant to docs, 
then I apologize.  But I don't think Janek's idea that it should be possible to 
simplify doc submissions is wrong.