Clarify rules for testing patches

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> What do you think of this?  (patches are unreadable so I'm just
> attaching both complete files).

What file version are these supposed to be based on?  You seem to be
reverting a lot of clarifying changes to those files from the past few
months.

> improvements, etc. for GCC</p>

Should be a full stop at the end of the sentence.

>      underfull hboxes from <code>make dvi</code>.)  Changes to the web
>      site must <a href="http://validator.w3.org/">validate</a> as HTML
>      4.01 Transitional.</li>

It's the preprocessed files that should validate, not those in CVS (which
lack DOCTYPE etc.).

> <p>We accept patches as plain text (preferred for the compilers
> themselves), MIME attachments (preferred for the web pages),
> or as uuencoded gzipped text.</p>

There should perhaps be some clarification based on the recent discussions
of MIME.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk