> I do not understand your 1, 2, 3 points (actually I have some subtle > disagreement i think :-) ) but yes, the end would be to have > manual_en_2.14, manual_en_2.18 and master which will become > manual_en_3.2 when released.
Please do disagree! > And I prefer the term of forwardporting from 2.18 to master than > backporting to avoid misunderstanding about the direction of the port. Totally no preference from my side, commits can be ported whatever way you prefer. > The advantage of this is, that new features can immediately be > documented in rst (and not only md as in the issue tracker) as soon as > someone wants. > > I still prefer pull requests (because PRs are a good way to avoid > breakage/typos and also a kind of "what's new in QGIS?") but yes direct > contribution from devs to doc will be possible. Sorry, I explained badly. Pull requests are perfectly fine and desirable and should be the standard way to contribute for everyone (including devs). What I wanted to say is that commits (and therefore pull requests) are preferable over issues because they are written in rst and not md, unlike issues. Matthias _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
