Am 11.03.2014 15:54, schrieb Guido van Rossum: > I'm not sure I agree completely with this lax attitude about the contents of the > docs, and especially the What's New parts of it (both Misc/NEWS and > Doc/whatsnew/3.4.rst). I don't think anyone here suggested not to update the whatsnew document. > I find it very useful to have these pinpoint *exactly* > what made it into the tarball or zipfile or whatever other form I happen to find > the release -- you don't always have the full hg logs lying around, nor do you > always know from which exact revision or tag a tree was built. In any case, I like to think it's not a lax attitude, but a consistent one: we basically don't want ANY non-critical changes in the RCs, so insufficient docs should be treated like any other bugfix that's not a release blocker: unfortunate, but not world-ending. That exceptions can be and are made (e.g. for the whatsnew document) is because for the docs the potential breakage is lower. > Of course it's fine to improve the docs in an ongoing fashion, and if it's just > a wording change to NEWS or whatsnew I don't mind missing it. But for specific > entries I'd like to strive for completeness in each branch/tag/rc. > > Also, tonds of thanks to RDM for his work on the new whatsnew! Definitely. Georg
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4