- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@codespeaks.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:20:44 +0100
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, at 20:13, Michael Cooper wrote: > On 10/03/2016 2:06 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, at 19:53, Michael Cooper wrote: > >> There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding > >> "It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that > >> pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted > >> by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be > >> others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules > >> before it can be considered fixed. Michael > > I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :) > When I'm in publication hell, exacerbated by a recently broken tool, > trying to learn the code in order to submit a pull request is just not > possible. I just don't have time to deal with that. Remember open-source contributors don't owe you anything and might be as exacerbated by your expression of entitlement as you might be by their broken tool. A tool which you are getting for free. :) --tobie
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 19:21:08 UTC