On 9 January 2015 at 14:20, Davin Potts wrote:
> Thanks! That sounds like a nice, clear path forward.
>
> Regarding the doc issues being a bit more problematic to work through, I
> thoroughly understand.
In the case of changes to the multiprocessing docs, accepting larger
restructures would mai
Thanks! That sounds like a nice, clear path forward.
Regarding the doc issues being a bit more problematic to work through, I
thoroughly understand.
Davin
On Jan 8, 2015, at 21:19, R. David Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:08:07 -0800, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> On 01/08/2015 03:21 PM,
On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 17:08:07 -0800, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 01/08/2015 03:21 PM, Davin Potts wrote:
> >
> > I am interested in making some serious ongoing contributions around
> > multiprocessing.
>
> Great!
>
> > Rather than me simply walking through that backlog, offering comments or
> > e
On 01/08/2015 03:21 PM, Davin Potts wrote:
>
> I am interested in making some serious ongoing contributions around
> multiprocessing.
Great!
> Rather than me simply walking through that backlog, offering comments or
> encouragement here and there on issues, it
> makes more sense for me to ask:
Hi all --
I am interested in making some serious ongoing contributions around
multiprocessing.
My inspiration, first and foremost, comes from the current documentation
for multiprocessing. There is great material there but I believe it is
being presented in a way that hinders adoption and unders
