Nicholas Clark wrote: > > Not good. 5 patches means that 4 people wasted effort trying to help. > I don't have a solution to this problem (sorry). But I think it's an > important problem to solve.
Wasted effort is a problem. I don't know that a perfect solution exists. Parrot's solution of making patches public on the list seems like a pretty good one. Asking if the work has already been done before you take on the task also helps. > What would facilitate the edit/review process so that the time taken to > apply a patch gets reduced? Some things just take time. > Failing that > > Is there a good way to have the apocalypse documents annotated in some way > with the lines or sections that are subject to a pending review? > > If they're being sent as diffs can we automatically mangle the diffs to > replace the substituted in text with XXXXs so that anyone who is thinking of > supplying a documentation patch can at least see which parts of the docs are > already pending changes. Is it sensible to make the list of unapproved edits > available for all to read (bluntly marked as such) This could probably be done. But the effort involved is prohibitively greater than simply pushing them through the review process, while the end result -- an updated document -- is the same without the extra effort. I wouldn't stop anyone who volunteered to set up something like that, but we could use that time and talent elsewhere to greater effect. > I suspect my finite time is better spent on code implementing things. I agree. Keep up the good work. Allison
