[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Review of the NR

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: Review of the NR
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:31:25 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Review of the NR

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

I've just spent a happy few hours reading the NR (pretty much all of
it!), and have a list of 41 corrections - they fix things like
snippets that should be ragged right, lines too long, some
explanations that are no longer accurate, etc., etc.  I guess it will
take me a day to fix them.  Do you think it would be better to list
them here first, or just go ahead and post a patch for review?

I'd prefer one patch/issue per correction.  But the effort for that is
not in a realistic relation to the reviewers who are actually going to
look at it.  It would still be nice if you organized this into separate
commits (git rebase -i and git add -p can be pretty useful for that kind
of thing) but it likely does not need more than a single issue in the

Most of them are so small that it wouldn't make sense/be practical to do a patch per alteration. Perhaps the best compromise would be a patch per section of the NR - i.e. 5 patches.

The most important consideration is that you don't do this in a manner
that leaves you with a "this is the last time I'll ever volunteer for
something like that" taste in the mouth.

That's why I thought I'd start here. Reviewers - please remember the intention is to improve the documentation, not make it perfect in all respects. When I post proposed changes, please think "is this better?", not "is there a slight alternative that will cause a long debate and create no improvement?". In the final analysis, if you have proposed amendments you think are better, go ahead and put them up for review.

David Kastrup

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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