From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10963 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2010 15:58:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 10953 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Aug 2010 15:58:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:58:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C282BAADF; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Fz5rUy0YvbXw; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:58:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD972BAADB; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:58:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0ED45F599F; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:58:32 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: teawater@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/DOC] record pic Message-ID: <20100827155832.GB2986@adacore.com> References: <83fx039kel.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6c1prnh.fsf@gnu.org> <83hbilnv4n.fsf@gnu.org> <8339u3ordt.fsf@gnu.org> <20100827143946.GA2986@adacore.com> <8339u0m4vu.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8339u0m4vu.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00468.txt.bz2 > I'm sorry, but the last version is still far from even being > less-than-perfect. I cannot in good faith let users read such > documentation. And what if the FSF decides to print this version of > the manual and sell it as a book? Hmm, that's a good point :-(. Well, we'll just have to be patient. BTW: Just to make it clear, this was not an appreciation of your reviewing work; I think you're doing a great job helping everyone with their documentation patch. It's just that in this particular case, with distance and English issues, the process is very slow and there is nothing much we can do about it (hence the not-so-good suggestion). Like Andrew used to say: Everything takes a week on the internet. -- Joel