Re: Doc: CG Updated section 1.3 - experienced devs (issue 287110043 by address@hidden)

[pkx166h]

Thanks for reviewing Simon.


https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi
File Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode120
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:120: Google's Reitveld code
review tool.
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> This should read Rietveld.
> Strictly speaking, it doesn’t _belong_ to Google IIUC. But given the
close links
> this is probably a legit simplification :-)

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode133
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:133: @item @strong{GIT
branches}:
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> The official capitalisation is ‘Git’, I think.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode147
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:147: translation patches
directly to it aswell.
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> as well – two words.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode157
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:157: files) between
released stable and unstable versions as well as checked
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> Why the parens?

No idea. Fixed.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode176
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:176: on the issue tracker;
also see @ref{Issues}.
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> ‘see also’?

See also the dog.

Also see the dog.

No, that doesn't make sense grammatically (at least in English it
doesn't).

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode194
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:194: more discussion is
needed, left at @code{Patch-review}.  In all cases
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> Could this use @itemize?

No I don't think so. There are enough on this page already and this
single @item encapsulates everything in that 'single' step.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi#newcode216
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:216: compromise we have
found.}
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> I’d prefer the former wording, except of course for the wrong time
span.

Starting a sentence with 'Yes' bothers me in technical writing. Does
code 'reach' or 'get merged into'? Also trying to remove 'emotive' words
(like 'unfortunate') which may not always be obvious to non-native
speakers or those that do not speak as good English as you obviously do.
I probably need a comma instead of a full stop.

OK I have re-written this slightly.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/