On 11/1/21, G. Branden Robinson <g.branden.robin...@gmail.com> wrote: > or until we can devise > some contributor-facing documentation that tells us all what is expected > and how to perform routine tasks like branch creation, management > (without blitzing the -commit list), and deletion.
I have no stake in this, as I'm not remotely a groff developer. But as an interested observer, I'll note that developer documentation might also have averted or more easily resolved some other issues that have cropped up in recent bug reports: - documentation of the intent of the various "make" targets could answer http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61167 - documentation of the intended scope of the test suite might have resolved http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61439 with less tension Different parties may, of course, still disagree on what this developer document should say, but framing those discussions as "what should our procedure be?" seems more fruitful than what these threads have been doing, which is different people coming to the table with different assumptions about how things ought to work and using those assumptions to judge the way things DO work.
