Documentation for the release

[Gervase Markham]

David Miller wrote:
> Quite frankly, that makes me a bit nervous.  I'm still remembering a 
> major docs checkin about a year ago or so that went something along the 
> lines of "hey guys, I just checked in a major revision to the 
> documentation", which none of us knew was coming, and nobody had time to 
> go back and audit.

So would anyone have had time to review it if I'd done it as a patch, 
then? :-)

> At the time I just said "oh, I trust Gerv, we'll 
> just hope it was good" and then over the following months, it turned out 
> important things disappeared, 

I was never made aware of such problems. Would that not have been a 
sensible thing to do? No one gets better if they are unaware of their 
mistakes...

> and all of those changes that were also 
> applicable to 2.16 never got backported to the 2.16 docs.

That's different. I don't think fixing the 2.18 docs obligates one to 
fix all versions of the docs in existence.

> I'd very much prefer patches to each of the docs bugs for the specific 
> things they cover (some of those bugs are for reorganization type 
> changes, if I recall correctly, so some of them are ripe for 
> larger-sized patches).

I assert that if the documentation's in the state you say, without a 
12-hour hackathon style thing, it's not going to be ready.

Having said that, I'm quite happy for there to be more warning, review 
and oversight :-) If I promise to carve out my weekend for this, can 
others promise to read the result and perhaps compare it with the 
previous version to see if I've accidentally nuked important information?

Gerv