Date: 11 May 2003 14:07:10 -0700 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: docs/52041: testing new mdoc-bug class Message-ID: <shissh42gx.ssh@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20030510203753.H665@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <200305110053.h4B0rGd9004467@gothmog.gr> <20030511010700.GA4585@gothmog.gr> <20030511021605.GB8548@gothmog.gr> <20030511024527.GA9150@gothmog.gr> <20030510203753.H665@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> Those all sound good to me, my big concern was that if your intention was
> a category that covered all docs in src that the name reflect that. :)
I guess the division could have been
"mdoc-bug" vs. "sgml-bug"
or
"src-doc-bug" vs. "doc-doc-bug"
but the two divisions are probably about the same thing, in practice.
I suspect that many people don't want to mess with certain source
languages (oh, say FDP's SGML) and would like to choose their PRs by
language. (Maybe that should be another field in the next PR system.)
In this case, most PR searchers, being fluent in both languages, would
probably find the src/doc division more useful.
People searching for a certain class of PRs should remember to also look
for the class "change-request", which conflicts with with other class
elements and so might apply to "src-doc" and "doc-doc" files. :(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?shissh42gx.ssh>