Yes please. I think I sent a patch in earlier, but I'm not sure if it's complete (I've been distracted with real life things for a while now): https://tpaste.us/1ldk It also updates my email so I can be pinged consistently in the future if there's an actual need.
I really shouldn't have much of a say here - just waiting for my packages to be orphaned. If you're interested, consider moving me to contributor and taking over maintainership (you seem to be doing most of it by now anyways).
This package should be orphaned (rather than moved to community), since I no longer have time for alpine.
I've talked to Nate about it, but I guess the patch to remove me as maintainer hasn't come through yet
I haven't heard anything. Based on loose form reading of above discussion, is the following an appropriate summary and executive plan?
Do we have gitlab's container registry feature and buildah in the repos? I might be able to look into the containerization part sometime soon. I made a tracking issue here: docs.a.o#4 - future discussion should happen there.
Context: Ikke (TSC and Infra team) requested we use gitlab's CI for doc release generation. This is a tracking branch for progress on that.
Steps required:
Ping @clandmeter
I (nor anyone on the doc team) is in control of the infra so ping them in the future.
IRC works too iirc
Chloe Kudryavtsev (b0b43a02) at 31 May 12:45
Working: properly explain releases
Cc @SpaceToast @kdaudt.
As a sidenote, I only noticed this because the "3.16" rendered a bit weirdly. Perhaps it shouldn't be between backticks? Everything else looks fine so it's not as a big deal.
This "i.e." should be e.g
, or better yet "for example".
"I.e." stands for "id est", which translate to "that is", but 3.16 is not the only stable release. It is also atypical to have a terminating "." there. "e.g" ("exempli gratia" ("for example")) would be appropriate.
However, there's no reason to use latin when simple english will do - it mostly encourages misunderstandings (such as the one that led to the use of the incorrect contraction).
Latest revision LGTM. I'm a bit busy today (also uptick in sick), but I'll compile it and make sure everything is displayed right shortly. Once that's done (assuming no outstanding issues are found) I'll merge.
Thanks for the contribution
Yes, which is why I mentioned the semantic break document (since we're fairly close to it). This is in stark contrast with breaking within the middle of a semantic structure (as was done previously), and bundling multiple sentences within single lines (outside of minor exceptions). Note that the above example is indeed semantically separated: the () is a separate semantic context.
Rewording is a significant improvement. "Usually" should be unnecessary here, but as far as I know it's not strictly correct. Perhaps it should be "Support entails security patches for the given feature versions." Besides that section LGTM.
I did say "with some minor changes"