Re: ReSpec updated

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound entitled, but recognize that the 
wording of my message does sound that way. I know Respec is a volunteer 
project made available for free. I would like to be able to contribute 
and share the load, but it uses a technology I just don't have skills 
in. So I have to depend on the people who do maintain it, to do so 
carefully. I think this whole recent episode shows the need to be 
careful with a production version, and to engage more people in review 
of development versions. Though I can't produce useful pull requests, I 
could provide useful input on something that I'm not depending on 
urgently for publication, but haven't known how to engage with that 
process. Michael

On 10/03/2016 2:20 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
> 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
>