Driving Continuous Improvement in D

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 6/5/18 9:58 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 6/5/18 3:20 AM, drug wrote:
>> 04.06.2018 21:08, Steven Schveighoffer пишет:
>>> On 6/4/18 1:51 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 15:52:24 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/18 3:23 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the article, but was taken aback a bit by this quote: "for 
>>>>> example, a PR to fix a bug in a specific piece of code mustn’t also 
>>>>> edit the documentation of that function."
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I think he was talking about _unrelated_ doc changes.
>>>
>>> Well, how unrelated? If, for instance, you are changing the docs to 
>>> accommodate the new code, and notice a typo, I would be fine with 
>>> fixing that, and have even ASKED for that. I guess I need a bigger 
>>> clarification, as the way it reads is that we require people split 
>>> their doc changes from their code changes, and that simply hasn't 
>>> been the case.
>>>
>>
>> But what if your commit with this typo would be reverted? Then you 
>> lost your typo fix too.
> 
> Then you fix the typo again? Reverts don't happen enough to justify this 
> concern.

To clarify a bit, complicated or controversial changes that are likely 
to be delayed or stalled, should be split from simple doc changes if it 
turns out it's not going to be pulled anytime soon. But normally, adding 
fixes for docs I would think is fine.

-Steve