Hi,
Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> A tiny change.
Thanks, I've applied a slightly different one. (I don't often read about
"registering with the VCS". "check in" is the more common term. Also,
when you say "marked as ignorable (for example, by adding them to
@file{.cvsignore}" - are there other ways to mark a file as ignorable?).
> (Is there a more preferred format for patches?)
It was OK. For documentation patches, unified diffs (like those that you sent)
are generally preferred over context diff.
2008-03-06 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/gnulib-tool.texi (VCS Issues): Small updates.
Reported by Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
*** doc/gnulib-tool.texi.orig 2008-03-06 14:53:54.000000000 +0100
--- doc/gnulib-tool.texi 2008-03-06 14:53:42.000000000 +0100
***************
*** 462,471 ****
their VCS, the @code{gnulib-tool} generated files should all be committed.
Gnulib also contains files generated by @command{make} (and removed by
! @code{make clean}), using information determined by @command{configure}
They should not be checked into the VCS, but instead added to
! @file{.cvsignore}. When you have a Gnulib source file of the form
! @file{lib/foo_.h}, the corresponding @file{lib/foo.h} is such a file.
@item
In projects which customarily omit from their VCS all files that are generated
--- 462,472 ----
their VCS, the @code{gnulib-tool} generated files should all be committed.
Gnulib also contains files generated by @command{make} (and removed by
! @code{make clean}), using information determined by @command{configure}.
They should not be checked into the VCS, but instead added to
! @file{.gitignore} or @file{.cvsignore}.
! When you have a Gnulib source file of the form @file{lib/foo.in.h}, the
! corresponding @file{lib/foo.h} is such a file.
@item
In projects which customarily omit from their VCS all files that are generated
