@dblodgett-usgs wrote (in https://github.com/dblodgett-usgs/cf-conventions/pull/10/files):
""" My opinion is that Pull requests are really not a good format to evolve text like this. They are great for critiquing code and doing fairly tight reviews on style and syntax, but for long form review of text, they can be very problematic. """ My experience, like yours, is that PRs are great for small changes to text, fixing typos, syntax rewrites, etc. And yes, not as good for long form review of text -- but I fail to see how an Issue is any better for long form review of text -- in fact, it's much worse -- and in particular, if you not adding a whole new couple pages, but rather one small section, to a doc (or a couple small sections that are related but in different parts of the doc), then you get as much context as you want, without an extra typing or management. Now, for developing the first version of a largish doc with a small group, maybe Google docs is a better way to go, sure -- but I can't see how using Issues helps as all. So again: Once you are to the state of proposing a change to the text of the doc, whether it's a whole new section or a typo fix -- put it in a PR. Also -- this is the first draft of the contributors doc -- whatever we do can be changed if things don't seem to be working as well as they might. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/130#issuecomment-390805875
