On 6/5/18 9:58 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/5/18 3:20 AM, drug wrote:
04.06.2018 21:08, Steven Schveighoffer пишет:
On 6/4/18 1:51 PM, Joakim wrote:
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 15:52:24 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/2/18 3:23 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
[...]
I like the article, but was taken aback a bit by this quote: "for
example, a PR to fix a bug in a specific piece of code mustn’t also
edit the documentation of that function."
[...]
I think he was talking about _unrelated_ doc changes.
Well, how unrelated? If, for instance, you are changing the docs to
accommodate the new code, and notice a typo, I would be fine with
fixing that, and have even ASKED for that. I guess I need a bigger
clarification, as the way it reads is that we require people split
their doc changes from their code changes, and that simply hasn't
been the case.
But what if your commit with this typo would be reverted? Then you
lost your typo fix too.
Then you fix the typo again? Reverts don't happen enough to justify this
concern.
To clarify a bit, complicated or controversial changes that are likely
to be delayed or stalled, should be split from simple doc changes if it
turns out it's not going to be pulled anytime soon. But normally, adding
fixes for docs I would think is fine.
-Steve
