|
| From: | Joseph Rushton Wakeling |
| Subject: | Re: [talk] why it'd be great to have web interface for submittingsimple doc patches |
| Date: | Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:26:03 +0200 |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20121003 Thunderbird/15.0.1 |
On 10/06/2012 05:46 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
As you say, compile-edit-compile cycles are shorter than the full build, but can occasionally not reveal errors, so for a proper test it's always better to nuke the build directory and rebuild from scratch.
Out of curiosity, what kind of errors? I imagine stuff involving cross-references, the index, etc.?
And given the amount of effort involved in all this, using git-cl seems a small additional step.
It's not too much if you've already got the hang of Git, if you're relatively experienced with development tools etc. But all of that feels a bit much if all you want to do is submit a small doc update and you're not a regular contributor.
I'm not demanding a solution here, but I don't think Janek's suggestion should be dismissed. I think that David has it right when he says the best way to handle code and the best way to handle documentation are not necessarily the same, and personally I think the git-cl/Rietveld approach is too slanted towards code requirements.
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |