On 12/18/2013 05:45 AM, dw wrote: > >>> I haven't had much (actually any) response from the gcc doc people about >>> this effort. >> I responded. > > Sorry, I didn't realize you were on the doc team. Reading the > maintainers list, I was expecting Gerald or Joseph. I'm not on the doc team. However, if we can get the technical content right it shouldn't be too hard to get your changes in. >> I reviewed part of it, and there were significant >> technical inaccuracies that had to be addressed before the changes >> were considered for inclusion. > > Yes, you did make a couple comments regarding a brief section of the > docs. However, after I corrected those issues, you were no longer > responsive. Are you ready to provide additional feedback? > > Other comments I have received from this work (here and elsewhere) have > been generally positive. While I don't believe any of these people have > the same in-depth technical knowledge of gcc that you do, the impression > I got was that this work was seen as a huge improvement over the > existing docs. To some extent it was, but there were still problems and I ran out of time. > If you are willing to take the time to review this work, I would be > interested in any feedback you'd care to give. However if you are going > to review this, give me a day or two to bring them up to speed. I'd > want to sync it with the current builds, and give it one last read to > see if letting this sit for 8 months (yes, it has been nearly that long) > gives me any new perspective. In GCCland 8 months is not a long time. :-) > After that, just let me know what feedback process works best for you: > Sending emails, me providing you the texi file so you can make changes > directly, phone call, etc. As I said, it'll have to be formally approved by a docs maintainer, but I'm happy to help knock it into shape if you like. Andrew.
