On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, at 18:54, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:47 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 07:58:55AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 7:52 AM Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org> wrote:
>> >> Want me to fix that or will the committer handle that?
>> >>
>> >> I found some more similar cases in acronyms.sgml.
>> >
>> > Given this I'd be OK with committing as-is in the name of matching existing
>> > project style. Then bringing up this inconsistency as a separate concern
>> > to be bulk fixed as part of implementing a new policy on what to check for
>> > and conform to when establishing acronyms in our documentation.
>> >
>> > Otherwise the author (you) should make the change here - the committer
>> > wouldn't be expected to know to do that from the discussion.
OK, I've made the change, new patch attached.
>> If I was writing these patches, I'd create a separate 0001 patch to fix the
>> existing problems, then 0002 would be just the new stuff (without the
>> inconsistency). But that's just what I'd do; there's no problem with doing
>> it the other way around.
>>
>
> Agreed, if Joel wants to write both. But as the broader fix shouldn't
> block adding a new acronym, it doesn't make sense to insist on this
> approach. Consistency makes sense though doing it the expected way
> would be OK as well. Either way, assuming the future patch
> materializes and gets committed the end state is the same, and the path
> to it doesn't really matter.
I'll start a new separate thread about fixing the other non-canonical URLs.
/Joel
