Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2011
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:12:22AM +0100, Abigail wrote: > > > > "are acceptable" should read "are grudgingly acceptable." Or maybe, "are > > acceptable if they fix broken links, broken Pod, or correct factual errors." > > > I never read it that way. I thought documentation updates are acceptable > as it seems extremely unlikely for a documentation patch to actually > introduce a bug. > > Typo fixes and many other documentation improvements seems low hanging, > non-dangerous fruit to me. I'd prefer them to be part of a maint release. That is how the policy was written after a fair amount of lobbying at me. I now regret it. The problem isn't whether it's low-hanging fruit or not. The problem is that each patch adds somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes of release-engineer load over the life of the release process. 25 simple doc fixes quickly start to add up, slowing down the release and taking focus away from other things that Must happen. I intend to revise the policy to lock things down a bit more in the near future. I'll post the draft update to p5p when I have something formulated. > And I think immediately applying instead of voting is the way to go. I'm not ok with this idea. maint releases need to be as conservative as possible. Part of making sure that happens is by requiring some checks and balances before backports happen. Opening up maint for doc backports without running through the process runs directly counter to that. Best, Jesse > Abigail --Thread Previous | Thread Next