Re: [sqlite] Request for documentation improvement: transactions

Richard Hipp wrote: > On 1/19/19, andrew.g...@l3t.com wrote: > > I was actually thinking about this earlier today, how I'd signed the > > contributor agreement for SQLite at the same time as I did for Fossil, > > yet only ever asked for commit access for Fossil. Would you consider > > letting me

Re: [sqlite] Request for documentation improvement: transactions

On 1/19/19, andrew.g...@l3t.com wrote: > > I was actually thinking about this earlier today, how I'd signed the > contributor agreement for SQLite at the same time as I did for Fossil, yet > only ever asked for commit access for Fossil. Would you consider letting me > help with SQLite

Re: [sqlite] Request for documentation improvement: transactions

Richard Hipp wrote: > Here's the deal: I'm very fussy about who can contribute *code* to > SQLite, in order to protect the public-domain status of the SQLite > source code and due to the intense nature of testing required to land a > change. Sensible. I was wondering about your policy here,

Re: [sqlite] Request for documentation improvement: transactions

On 1/19/19, Simon Slavin wrote: > I suspect it [the docs] started out small and grew, without ever being > rewritten. That is a reasonable conjecture. I agree that the documentation could use some work. I will eventually get around to doing this, but I feel like making enhancements and fixing

[sqlite] Request for documentation improvement: transactions

concerns me. I suspect it started out small and grew, without ever being rewritten. (1) It explains four complicated issues and has no sections. I see two possibilities: either improve that page, or split it into (A) a short page which