On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 02/04/2011 18:56, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > #2: the advice is still wrong. there is a distinct difference > > between "recommended" and "required". if you choose to defend what > > you *imagine* you're reading there, feel free. i, on the other hand, > > am criticizing (for good reason) what is *actually* there. > > Criticism is fine, but remember that this is a community, rather > than a typical vendor/client relationship. If there is something > that you think is wrong, it is at least as much your responsibility > as anyone else's to fix it. If you think there is a better wording > then let folks know what it is. A patch (in diff -u format) attached > to a bugzilla issue is ideal although for small changes just the new > wording is fine. > > If you want/need help building Tomcat to test your change or > creating a patch just ask here.
my apologies, i was a bit snarkier than i had to be. in my defense, i'm a long-time proofreader and documentation author so i'm anal-retentive when it comes to precise wording. in any event, just to add something to that issue, since it's fairly important that linux/unix users download the tar archive rather than the zip archive for the proper executable bit settings, i would suggest adding a prominent warning like that on the downloads page itself: http://tomcat.apache.org/download-70.cgi since there doesn't appear to be anything there that warns the user about that. rday --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
