LFS 6.4 Book HTML
viperjason at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 09:46:41 PDT 2009
Full QA? For a change in wording? Thats like saying that the book
has an extra "the" on page X and to remove the extra "the" we need to
re-read the whole book just to make sure that the extra "the" doesnt
break any code.
Please dont tell me that your serious.
As far as new download locations...fine, I can understand that because
of possible code changes or corruption in the zip file.
But please dont tell me that re-wording a document to make it clearer
has to go through a full QA process. That could be done with a simple
deskcheck or even an inspection meeting at most.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Simon Geard wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 10:48 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>> Simon Geard wrote:
>>>> If we were *really* following standard practice, we'd be applying the
>>>> errata changes against the 6.4 book, and putting a 6.4.1 book on the
>>>> website to replace it.
>>> Can't dispute. You'd do a "point release".
>> Right, which I assume is what the other poster was arguing for. The idea
> I don't think so, though that's possible.
>> of an errata page is very much a legacy of hardcopy publishing - for
> I trow not.
>> purely electronic documents, the software model of fix and re-release
>> makes much more sense.
>> No idea how big a deal it would be to do, but in theory it's highly
> A point release should go through full QA, which is why it would
> be a big deal, require full directory structure creation, regresion
> testing, etc. Someone would have to go through the full build
> following the book exactly.
> Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
> This message made from 100% recycled bits.
> You have found the bank of Larn.
> I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
More information about the lfs-support