martijnverburg at gmail.com
Tue Feb 3 15:21:53 UTC 2015
Thanks, in that case I'll submit a patch and see what people think, if it's
too big a change then I can always redo in pieces. I'm personally OK with
HTML, pretty used to making it play nice, but have noting against Markdown
On 3 February 2015 at 13:50, Magnus Ihse Bursie <
magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 2015-02-01 11:16, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm sitting at FOSDEM and was reminded that we hadn't yet made the effort
>> to integrate the "How to build OpenJDK" material we've built up over on
>> adoptopendk.java.net (the incubator site for Adoption Group activities)
>> well as tidying up some typos and HTML compatibility warnings in the doc.
>> Updating a reasonably large document will mean a diff of:
>> * Whitespace changes
>> * HTML formatting changes
>> * Actual content changes
>> Would people prefer a patch for each type of change? Or are they happy for
>> what will likely be a reasonably large diff, (which basically means
>> eyeballing the end result).
> With a suitable diff tool, hiding/showing whitespace changes is no big
> deal, so since it is only a single file I don't see the need for a separate
> patch for that.
> If the formatting changes are much higher in number than actual content
> change, it might make sense to separate those. But just a few formatting
> changes among real content change is no problem.
> In a somewhat related area: I've been toying with the idea of rewriting
> the build-readme in markdown instead, and just generate the html file.
> Updating proper, consistent html formatting for a document like this is
> quite painful, and we never seem to get it right. Does it sound like a good
More information about the build-dev