On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: > This happens because > 1. People don't want to write texinfo, and continually submit patches to > update the docs little by little (remember, people work on docs the same > way they do on code. Most of the time, what they have written is not > complete yet. Which is fine for the wiki, but not for our cvs docs, it > seems), whereas this is trivial with the wiki
Patches for the internals documentation don't need to be complete. c-tree.texi and sourcebuild.texi are both clearly marked as incomplete. > 2. The docs people seem to want to write or use don't fit anywhere in > our current scheme. They can just stick a new chapter somewhere vaguely plausible in the internals manual - that's what's been done so far. The structure of the internals manual may not be wonderfully coherent, but adding new chapters won't make it worse. > We should be taking what people do and moving it, not saying "you can't > write it where you want". This does of course require identifying the authors of all significant parts and making sure they have assignments or disclaimers on file at the FSF. -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CodeSourcery mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
