From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [commit] Doc: -var-delete
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ubqmjcuna.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17779.42719.879365.463927@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> (message from Nick Roberts on Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:41:03 +1300)
> From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 17:41:03 +1300
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> I was trying to apply the definition in MAINTAINERS:
>
> An "obvious fix" means that there is no possibility that anyone will
> disagree with the change.
>
> As I'm documenting existing (undocumented) functionality I can't see how anyone
> can disagree.
The _need_ for documenting an existing feature is indisputable (at
least in this case, since that is my policy; you know as well as I do
that, in the case of Emacs, for example, RMS has a different policy,
so even the need for documenting an existing feature does not
necessarily constitute a good-enough reason). However, _how_ it
should be documented is not obvious in any way; I could express the
same idea as you did in about a dozen different ways.
> Why do you think it is not obvious?
Because about the only kind of fix in the docs that is really obvious
is a typo or bad English.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-04 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-04 3:57 Nick Roberts
2006-12-04 4:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-12-04 4:45 ` Nick Roberts
2006-12-04 19:45 ` Eli Zaretskii [this message]
2006-12-04 20:57 ` Nick Roberts
2006-12-08 17:29 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-12-08 17:32 ` [commit] Clarify obvious fix in the docs (was: Doc: -var-delete) Eli Zaretskii
2006-12-04 9:16 ` [commit] Doc: -var-delete Vladimir Prus
2006-12-04 10:29 Nick Roberts
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ubqmjcuna.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=nickrob@snap.net.nz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox