On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:50:10PM -0600, Allison Randal wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:58:52PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes: > > > Big, Big HOLE in the middle. _Who_ is fleshing out the mindless, > > > trivial details that Larry posts to this list, and _who_ is > > > creating/updating the documentation to reflect those changes? Anyone? > > > > Allison is, but she was too modest to say so. (And I fear, too busy > > to check in much in the recent past. :( ) > > > > It's all at http://cvs.perl.org/cvsweb/perl6/doc/design/ > > The updates to A1 are finished and pending approval. A2's updates are > half finished. The rest of the revisions to the Apocalypses and Exegeses > are in the form of extensive notes.
Good. (I can't find a better way to say that without sounding insincere) > Feel free to send me documentation patches (follow Parrot's format: > http://www.parrotcode.org/patchfaq). They'll be accepted if they're > clearly written, technically correct and relevant. They'll be subject to > my edits and a review process by the entire design team. And keep in > mind that I've probably gotten 5 other patches for the same bit, so ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > your patch may not be the one that gets published. 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. What would facilitate the edit/review process so that the time taken to apply a patch gets reduced? 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) Speaking for just myself, until such time as I know that there wasn't the strong chance of 1+ patches already existing for any part of the documentation, I won't even consider using finite supply of free time on submitting documentation patches for perl6. Hmm. Don't take that as a commitment that I would be supply patches as soon as the patch pending sections are known - I suspect my finite time is better spent on code implementing things. Nicholas Clark -- INTERCAL better than perl? http://www.perl.org/advocacy/spoofathon/
