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
+ 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 ?