Hello Tom,
Uh, can someone else give an opinion on this? I am not sure how hard or un-fun an item is should be used as criteria.
Historically we don't document documentation changes at all, do we?
ISTM that the "we did not do it previously" is as weak an argument as un-fun-ness:-)
It seems (a) pointless
I disagree, on the very principle of free software values as a social movement.
Documentation improvements should be encouraged, and recognizing these in the release notes contributes to do that for what is a lot of unpaid work given freely by many people. I do not see this as "pointless", on the contrary, having something "free" in a mostly mercantile world is odd enough to deserve some praise.
How many hours have you spent on the function operator table improvements? If someone else had contributed that and only that to a release, would it not justify two lines of implicit thanks somewhere down in the release notes?
Moreover adding a documentation section costs next to nothing, so what is the actual point of not doing it? Also, having some documentation improvements listed under "source code" does not make sense: writing good, precise and structured English is not "source code".
and (b) circular.
Meh. The whole documentation is "circular" by construction, with references from one section to the next and back, indexes, glossary, acronyms, tutorials, whatever.
-- Fabien.
