On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Nick Coghlan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
1/ is better for the flow, but the quality of the doc might suffer from it if Georg (or others) doesn't have time to review it
This is of little concern. As long as the documentation continues to build (into html), nearly all documentation changes are improvements.
I agree with Martin here - breaking the documentation build isn't good, but other than that most doc changes are going to be OK.
Ok, I'll stick with that process,
And as for doing your own doc build, these days that should be as simple as changing to the Docs directory and typing "make html" (stale code in the Docs/tools directory can sometimes be a problem, but if you haven't built the docs before then that shouldn't come up).
Running "make html" is part of my process when I change Doc, but I didn't know about the stale code issue, thanks for the tip
Out of curiosity : is there any mechanism in the post-commit that checks if "make html" doesn't spit any error ?