Sorry, fell behind on things again... Thorsten Leemhuis <li...@leemhuis.info> writes:
>> - It would be awfully nice if we could provide this advice in exactly >> one place in the document. This is one of our most important docs, >> and it is far too long to expect new contributors to read through and >> absorb. Avoiding making it longer and more repetitive would be >> better, if we can. > > Well, in 5.Posting.rst that was possible. In submitting-patches.rst that > conflicted with existing text in three areas, so some changes were > needed; in one case the new text even got a little shorter, but overall > those changes did not add a single new line. > > But sure, the new paragraph added a few lines. And it is identical in > both documents. But that is a more complex and existing situation this > patch can't solve. But of course I could avoid adding the new paragraph > to submitting-patches.rst and change the "(see 'Tagging people requires > permission' below for details)" added there already into "(see 'Tagging > people requires permission' in Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst for > details)". Given that people requested a even more detailed paragraph > (see the other reply I just sent to Laurent) that might be wise; OTOH > submitting-patches.rst right now AFAICS tries to be stand-alone, so it > feels wrong at the same time. > > IOW: both is fine for me. Could you let me please know what you prefer? Adding more cross references certainly won't help, I guess we'll leave it as-is for now. >> - I wonder if it would make sense to say that, if an implicit-permission >> tag has been added, the person named in it should get at least one >> copy of the change before it is merged? > > Hah, that is where I'd start to say "that seems like a bit much". And it > does not help, as the cat is out of the bag once that copy is out, as > the name and the email address someone might prefer to keep private > would have made it to mailing list archives then already. The cat is out of the bag but not in the repository; the thought was that it's polite to give the person involved a heads-up that their name is being taken in vain. Certainly I've seen enough "what, no, I don't want that tag there" reactions over the years to think it would occasionally head off a use that the owner of the name doesn't want. jon
