This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Manual patch: terminology
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:06:53 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: Manual patch: terminology
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401180212020.5560@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><Pine.BSF.4.58.0402022245360.80414@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Are you saying that you are "reverse engineering" those patches for
> the GCC 3.3 manuals that were made on money from the FSF but never
> contributed back to GCC?
Yes. Chris Devers vanished so all we have to work from is the 15000-line
diff attached to bug 13573 (full of gratuitous paragraph reformattings).
At some point we'll need to consider that patch's general removal of all
uses of the first person (far beyond just the obviously dubious RMS-isms
such as "Coming as I do from a Lisp background, I balk ..."), and of most
parentheses, without the benefit of the original rationale from when these
changes were made. I think that for future editions we should insist on
only co-operating at all with GNU Press if they work directly from the
relevant CVS release branch, with the printed manual having sources that
are exactly the branch sources as of some date (tagged to identify them as
the sources of that manual edition) and no changes going in to the manual
without passing the usual review processes and first going on mainline.
(There is an FSFPRINT conditional I added specifically to support
differences in the ordinary manuals and the FSF-printed versions. They
didn't use it. Certain changes, such as the different form in which the
internals manual is referenced from the published edition, clearly should
be handled by FSFPRINT-conditional macros.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm@polyomino.org.uk