[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: what's next? and OCaml documentation

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:27:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:36:25AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Yay! \o/
> The transition brings us to the obvious question of: what's next?
> I guess we have all pet bugs in OCaml-related packages which were
> waiting to be fixed for the transition to happen. My proposal is hence
> to give us a week or so of time to fix them with the corresponding
> uploads.  Settled them we can then prod the release managers asking them
> whether it would be fine or not to go ahead with another binNMU-based
> transition for OCaml 3.10.2, I frankly hope so.


I just saw in the doc-base policy, section 2.3.3, description of
the section "Programming" :

  Documentation related to only one specific language should be put in
  subsection named like the language, for example: C, C++, ...

This is version 0.8.10 of February 22 of the doc-base policy. The above
paragraph seems to be recent, the doc-base changelog entry of doc-base
0.8.10 says:

  * doc-base.sgml:
      + define real section hierarchy (closes: #109431), strongly based
      on the menu one with a few doc-base specific sections added;

So, shouldn't we go for it now and inroduce the "Programming/OCaml"
section in doc-base that we have been waiting for ?


Reply to: