Le 26/02/2014 01:47, Randy McMurchy a écrit : > On 2/25/2014 5:26 PM, Armin K. wrote: >> On 25.2.2014 23:54, Randy McMurchy wrote: >>> Though I strongly disagree with your decision to remove the docs, >>> the more important part of your commit is removing the work done >>> by another editor without discussion. Another editor went to the >>> trouble of adding the instructions to build and install the docs, >>> and you just decide to remove it because you don't use pdf docs. >> We have seen lot of that lately though and I really feel sorry. > I'm not sure what Pierre was thinking. It could be that: > > 1) He doesn't realize that it was a block of instructions separate > from the main body of instructions that readers can just elect not > to perform. > > 2) He doesn't have a laTeX installation so he cannot test the > instructions, and simply removed them. > > 3) He has a bit of dictatorship in him, and is adamant that folks > use a browser to view HTML docs. > Maybe all three ;-)
Seriously, I have had my work reverted (or changed) several times and never said anything. In this case, it was reverted just a few hours after I committed it. I understand that I should have discussed that before, but had no time, because of the hurry in tagging. Furthermore, I have seen a lot of doc generation instructions disappearing (mainly doxygen and pdf) in the past, without anybody complaining. In this special case, docs were still built in .info, .html and .txt style, so it makes a usable package. I am inclined to think that building more is up to the user to figure out how to. Is it the aim of the book to show all possibilities? If so, I think a lot more should be done... In any case, I did not mean to punch anybody in the face. Maybe, when there is more time, we could start a related discussion about having optional instructions in the book not distinct in any way from mandatory ones. As you may remember, I use some kind of automation for testing the book. If optional instruction removing cannot be automated, it takes a lot more time to do it manually. OTOH, if I make scripts for testing the book, I may as well end up testing my scripts rather than what is written in the book. That's the main reason for automation: extracting the current instructions as written in the book, and testing them. If I have to modify manually the generated scripts, I test my work (and it is much more time consuming). Of course, full automation cannot be achieved, and is not desirable, so setting general rules is not easy. Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
