Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tuesday 12 July 2005 00:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit | > | after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the | > | internals manual in without review. Is that something people are | > | willing to consider and discuss? | > | > the idea that we don't review internal manual is worrysome. Some | > years ago, I based a work on doc/c-tree.texi (thanks Mark!). But the | > fact that it escaped continual revision as code gets added or improved | > made it a dangerous documentation, because it led to writing codes | > based on semantics that was no longer true. Got bugs, but don't know | > which side is not working prorperly. Similarly, we don't really want | > to let doc patches in without double-check. | | Think about what you are saying: "Because almost nobody is working on | the internals manual, the documentation bit-rotted."
In fact, you just invented that and you're trying to credit me fort it? No, thanks. Stick to what I wrote and if you think there is something unclear, please ask. But refrain from crediting me for something I did not say. -- Gaby
