On May 11, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Actually, I think my "resolving" these doc issues when all I have done is apply the posted patch is completely incorrect.
Probably the correct action is to add a comment that the patch was applied. Then whomever reported the problem needs to verify that the patch fixed the issue, then resolve the issue as 'fixed'.
right?
I'm not sure what exactly the best way to go would be. That doesn't sound bad, but it would be nice to have descriptive comments in svn as well, provided by whomever made the fix. I usually copy/paste a summary from the mail with the patch. If you don't get the comments for patches that were attached to jira entries until after the patch has been submitted, then adding those comments to svn requires an extra step, editing the svn log entry. For reference, that can be done with:
svn propedit --revprop -r 169667 svn:log
also, one patch per commit would be best, right? I realized that after
committing three patches in one lump.
Yes, the most important reason being that it can be impossible to determine what changes correspond to which issues if the files are all lumped together in one commit.
If the corresponding html file is also posted, along with the dita file, the
change can be reviewed before the patch gets applied. Now's a good time
for establishing preferences for handling doc issues and we can easily update
the web site with more amplified steps to follow.
+1. It's not terribly difficult to generate the docs from the DITA source, so providing sample output with doc changes would be nice.
andrew
