|
From: | Trevor Daniels |
Subject: | Re: CM 1.1 git question |
Date: | Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:52:34 -0000 |
Jonathan Kulp wrote Friday, February 20, 2009 2:58 PM
Graham Percival wrote:On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 08:09:21AM -0600, Jonathan Kulp wrote:Is this right? I surmise that this pulls down more code than strictly necessary for working on docs, but I don't mind having the extra code.Maybe I should delete the whole directory and do a fresh clone.Oh, I forgot to mention...I personally hope that you **don't** learn anything about git fromall this discussion. I need somebody who is intelligent, willing to follow instructions, willing to patient while we work out problems... but who fundamentally ONLY follows the instructions written in the latest online version of CG 1.That's the only way that we'll get good docs for new contributors.Remember my "the only answer is RTFM" idea? i.e. 1. Contributor (you) has a problem. 2. Knowledgeable person glances at the docs, fixes / clarifies the point in question. 3. Knowledgeable person says "RTFM 1.1 (but wait until midnight when the new changes will be visilbe)" 4. Goto #1 5. Profit. ($$$) Once we've gone through all this pain (you being confused about git, and we (possibly including me) editing the CG), the next contributor will have a much easier task. Cheers, - GrahamI'll try my best not to learn anything. :) I went and followed the instructions in CG for creating the new branch and it worked fine, I think. I got my "lastest" typo back anyway. So I fixed that and also went through and made a bunch of quotation mark fixes to use the @q{} and @qq{} command. I stripped trailing white spaces. My editor says the line endings are unix. I hope it turns out o.k. on the other end.Trevor, do you want to try applying this one? Thanks guys,
You have removed all the whitespace, but the lines still have Windows line terminations (CR-LF). I fixed that, but I'm afraid it still doesn't apply. I honestly don't know whether the problem is at my end or yours. Maybe someone else could try it. Or you could reset your repo and try it yourself. There are a couple of peculiarities with the file. The Subject: field says you fixed numerous @q{} and @qq{} errors, but nothing like this appears in the body of the patch. Some context lines seem to be missing. In particular, one part of the patch says @@ -248,8 +248,8 @@ Manual at @section Sharing your changes @menu -* Producing a patch:: -* Committing directly:: +* Producing a patch:: +* Committing directly:: @end menu but the corresponding section of the .itely file has Manual at @uref{http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html} @node Sharing your changes @section Sharing your changes @menu * Producing a patch:: * Committing directly:: @end menu I'm out of ideas at the moment. I need to do a bit more research on patch formatting to understand what is going on. I'll look again tomorrow. Trevor
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |