Re: read-face-name doc string incorrect

[Richard Stallman]

    > The main checking that is needed here is accuracy checking.  Is the
    > information correct?  Have the changes in etc/NEWS made it wrong?
    > So you need to reread NEWS, then read the text, and check the facts
    > it states.

    I've looked through etc/NEWS and AFAICS all the significant items have been
    updated.  Checking undocumented details can now only really be done by
    trawling through the ChangeLogs.  

I think there is a misunderstanding about the job at hand.

We know that the important items in etc/NEWS have been documented in
the manuals, because we marked those items with +++ when this was
done.

However, just because we document the change in the manual does not
mean that everything is accurate.  We document the change in the
principal place that the issue is referred to.  But there can easily
be other places that refer to the issue tangentially.  They might need
updating.

So the job here is to check all the side-references, the examples, etc.

    Many projects have a file called CONTRIBUTE.  I think we should do this 
also.
    There a many things that could go into it, but in particular we could stress
    that new features should be documented (or at the least noted in NEWS). 
    Perhaps it should be made as a condition of the commit.

I don't understand what you are proposing; the proposal is incomplete.
Perhaps you are trying to solve the problem which we have already
solved by marking +++ in etc/NEWS.