Hi Magnus, Thanks, in that case I'll submit a patch and see what people think, if it's too big a change then I can always redo in pieces. I'm personally OK with HTML, pretty used to making it play nice, but have noting against Markdown either.
Cheers, Martijn On 3 February 2015 at 13:50, Magnus Ihse Bursie < magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 2015-02-01 11:16, Martijn Verburg wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm sitting at FOSDEM and was reminded that we hadn't yet made the effort >> to integrate the "How to build OpenJDK" material we've built up over on >> adoptopendk.java.net (the incubator site for Adoption Group activities) >> as >> well as tidying up some typos and HTML compatibility warnings in the doc. >> >> Updating a reasonably large document will mean a diff of: >> >> * Whitespace changes >> * HTML formatting changes >> * Actual content changes >> >> Would people prefer a patch for each type of change? Or are they happy for >> what will likely be a reasonably large diff, (which basically means >> eyeballing the end result). >> > > With a suitable diff tool, hiding/showing whitespace changes is no big > deal, so since it is only a single file I don't see the need for a separate > patch for that. > > If the formatting changes are much higher in number than actual content > change, it might make sense to separate those. But just a few formatting > changes among real content change is no problem. > > In a somewhat related area: I've been toying with the idea of rewriting > the build-readme in markdown instead, and just generate the html file. > Updating proper, consistent html formatting for a document like this is > quite painful, and we never seem to get it right. Does it sound like a good > idea? > > /Magnus >
