On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote: > Ok, are there any guidelines for what should and should not be put > forward as a patch. I can see 3 key areas of concern: > > 1. Framework for unwritten Synopses (so we know what goes where) > 2. Heading placeholders for written Synopses with missing information > 3. Decisions rendered by @larry (or should it only be $larry) on the > list that are not yet in the corresponding Synopsis
I think any of these are candidates for patches. Certainly it's easier for others to respond to (and suggest further patches to) specific written proposed documents than it is to try to find things in the mailing list threads. For anything that doesn't come from @Larry or $Larry, I think we can perhaps provide a notation that the item is "draft" or "proposed" status if there's any doubt about its ultimate acceptance in Perl 6. It's again much easier to do a "grep draft" on the design document files to find potentially unblessed items than it is to search through the p6l archives. > I have included a sample framework for chapter 17. Theoretically, > someone could then go search the archives for decision points in any > of those headings and fill in the blanks. Is this what you envisioned > or were you thinking only minor tweaks to existing documents? I'm envisioning anything that helps advance the state of the documentation and Perl 6 development. In that sense, I think that even templates and placeholders can be helpful as long as they don't lead people down the wrong path (or as long as they're fairly up front about "this might be the wrong path"). Pm
