On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Holger Schurig wrote:
> > oh, sorry, i missed that doc *branch*, my fault.
>
> It's totally new ... and awesome (compared to the old docs).
ok, possibly a silly question but, as i now read it, if i want to
work with the sphinx-based docs, i should be working off the "doc"
branch and restrict my changes to just the files in the Documentation
directory.
but recently, i submitted a patch to correct the misspelling
"persistant", and some of those changes were in Documentation/, while
other examples of that were scattered elsewhere (arch/, scripts/).
so what's the protocol for correcting "documentation" (eg., inline
comments in source files) as opposed to the content under
Documentation? should non-Documentation patches be submitted against
the master branch? or does the "doc" branch track master closely
enough that i can exclusively stay on the "doc" branch?
as in, should i resubmit that earlier patch broken into two parts?
and if one submits a patch against the "doc" branch, should that be
identified in the patch itself? the subject line?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
