Re: contributing instructions are misleading!

[Carl Peterson]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Graham Percival <address@hidden> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:26:55PM -0500, Carl Peterson wrote:
>    In my searching, I didn't find a page that really did this. Section 1.2 of
>    the current CG should theoretically do this (based on the title), but it
>    mostly just talks philosophically about git.

Sounds good.  I've never liked that "wall of text" in CG 1.2.  How
about you rename the existing section to something like
"Introduction to open-source development" or "Introduction to
git", then add a new section that's the kind of overview you
suggested.

NB: this type of change is minimally invasive, has a well-defined
scope, and can be done in an hour without requiring lots of
discussion on -devel.  By contrast, based on historical evidence,
any discussion about reorganizing any document is likely to
involve at least 5 hours of emails and has over a 50% chance of
somebody's feelings getting hurt.

Once I have the current website/documentation patch through and the one that I need to redo properly (which was the original one that got me into the dev side), I'll start taking a look at this. The timing also has the advantage of letting me work through a couple of reviews myself to understand this end of the process better before I look at documentation that touches the process.

Why can I never remember the old adage about suggestions? Never make a suggestion you aren't willing to implement. :) Oh, well. As they say, it builds character.

Carl