On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 07:49:49AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > 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/). That's fine. I'll solve the merges conflicts. > > 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? Please send documentation patches only against the doc branch. I'll resolve the merge conflicts against master should there be any. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
