[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Volta enhancements tranche 1 (issue 6398055)

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: Volta enhancements tranche 1 (issue 6398055)
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:54:01 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 07:45:58PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Hulin" <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Volta enhancements tranche 1 (issue 6398055)
> >Implementation
> >
> ><tbs> by a grown-up who understands how the docs are compiled.

That's the sticking point.

> My understanding was that there was a desire to index /foo and foo
> as the same, and have a single index.  You want to fix that, go
> ahead.

Yes.  Note that this would require adding functionality to
texinfo, and since I don't want to require CVS versions of
software as part of our doc build, that will require a texinfo
release, and there hasn't been any texinfo release since 2008 so
that would require a lot of work on that side of things.  Oh, and
even if there _was_ a new texinfo release, we'd need to have a few
rounds of bugfixing in texinfo and/or rewriting our docs so that
they work on the new version of texinfo because probably a lot
will have changed.

Short answer: we're stuck with the current indices.  No point
having a policy discussion for a policy that can't possibly be
implemented in less than 12 months.
(even if texinfo had a release today, it would take time to sort
out the bugs and get that stable version into linux distributions)

If and when texinfo _is_ updated, and our docs _do_ compile in
that version, we can have a policy discussion about what we'd like
to see at that time.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]