bugzilla.mozilla.org will be intermittently unavailable on Saturday, March 24th, from 16:00 until 20:00 UTC.
Section 3.1 in the current tip docs (id="parameters") would be better suited, IMHO, to using the <varlist/> docbook tag instead of <step/>.
I'll take this one, as it'll be a good excuse for me to learn about </varlist>. (I'm picking up SGML as I go along...) Meta-issue: This bug was originally a comment in a review of bug 256019, labelled as a 'nit'. I think that making a new bug for it was a good idea, because it's not really a nit - it's a change. Not a *big* change, mind, but a change nonetheless. My opinion is that it's okay to fix nits as the original bug gets checked in, rather than either asking the original submitter to make a new patch or opening a new bug against it... as long as they are actually nits. To my mind, the 'nit' category includes things like typos and spelling mistakes, malformed/unclosed SGML tags, mis-capitalization, spacing/wrap changes, or any other situation where the reviewer can make the change with near-to-100% certainty that the intent and meaning of the original submitter is not being altered. For stuff like that... my feeling is 'mention it, but just fix it on checkin'; makes things easier for just about everyone, including the reviewer (who doesn't then have to review ANOTHER patch for trivial changes like these). Anyway, as I said, that's a meta-issue and not really related to this one at all. I know that this position will probably be perceived as inconsistent with my earlier
Assignee: documentation → travis
In the past I've always used *nit* to mean "This is something I'm gonna mention, but I'm not gonna withhold review if it's not fixed in a later version or if all I find if *nits*." Kinda like a short for "I'm being nit-picky here, but..." type of thing. A spelling error or error in the XML is something that /needs/ (unless it's the the color/colour argument) to be corrected, not something that may or may not be corrected. If it's a small enough error (and again, no other glaring errors), then "fix it on checkin" is fine. I guess it was all a bit of ambiguity about what exactly was meant by *nit* :). As I simple meant "it may or may not be corrected in the next patch... I don't really care," I filed a seperate bug about it to indicate that, in fact, may not was probably the better option.
Created attachment 171783 [details] [diff] [review] Doc changes for 2.16
Attachment #171783 - Flags: review?(documentation)
Created attachment 171785 [details] [diff] [review] Doc changes for 2.18 and tip
Attachment #171785 - Flags: review?(documentation)
Attachment #171785 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+
Comment on attachment 171783 [details] [diff] [review] Doc changes for 2.16 I've reviewed this by checking it applies and looking at the patch; I can not get 2.16 documents to build because they are invalid XML.
Attachment #171783 - Flags: review?(documentation) → review+
2.16: Checking in administration.xml; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v <-- administration.xml new revision: 126.96.36.199; previous revision: 188.8.131.52 done 2.18: Checking in administration.xml; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v <-- administration.xml new revision: 184.108.40.206; previous revision: 220.127.116.11 done Tip: Checking in administration.xml; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/docs/xml/administration.xml,v <-- administration.xml new revision: 1.45; previous revision: 1.44 done
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.