editors: Re: gnu/linux tools summary review


Previous by date: 27 Jun 2004 06:44:19 -0000 Re: gnu/linux tools summary review, Tabatha Marshall
Next by date: 27 Jun 2004 06:44:19 -0000 Re: gnu/linux tools summary review], Tabatha Marshall
Previous in thread: 27 Jun 2004 06:44:19 -0000 Re: gnu/linux tools summary review, Tabatha Marshall
Next in thread:

Subject: Re: gnu/linux tools summary review
From: Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date: 27 Jun 2004 06:44:19 -0000
Message-Id: <1088318515.790.34.camel@slackerchild.dbsofttware.com>

On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 23:03, Guru - wrote:
> Hi Tabatha,
> 
> In regard to technical feedback, my previous reviewer (hackswell) did a very 
> thorough analysis of language and tested everything he went through, he also 
> pointed out mistakes which I'd missed (usually minor...). However he didn't 
> get very far past section 9 or 10....(at which point he left for a holiday 
> for a few months).
> 
> Rahual and David Lawyer have given feedback in regard to style, and Chris 
> has helped out with various parts (see the contributors section for the 
> list).

I know this doc has been in the works for quite a while now, so I'm not
terribly worried about it.  Given what I've seen so far, you seem
dedicated enough to keep on top of ongoing updates, so we can just
proceed with making sure everything else is correct in terms of language
and get this document into the collection.

> My document also ranks high on google when searching for "Network Commands" 
> (no 4!!!).
> "Linux tools" (no 3) and 4th page, 2nd in list when searching for linux 
> commands (well that keyword is very popular!).
> For unknown reasons, Chris says the weblogs state it gets quite a lot of 
> hits but I don't seem to be getting any feedback from anyone (yet)
> 
> So anyone is free to do a technical review, just be warned that it is large 
> and there is a lot to review...

Again, no problem.  It's seen a lot of eyes already.  It's been waiting
a long time for official publication.  If no one pipes up on the editor
list by Tuesday I'll get started on it myself.  I'm going to start using
CVS.  Have you got your CVS account set up and started using it yet?  We
may as well try and get in the habit - I think it'll speed up the review
process a bit.

I'll keep my eyes out for a response from language reviewers, and will
let you know shortly!

Thanks,
Tab

> 
> >From: Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####

> >I'd be glad to go over it now and make sure there are no issues with the
> >language, spelling, grammar and so forth.  What kind of technical
> >feedback have you received?  I imagine this document's seen many eyes by
> >now but I thought I would make sure I cover all the bases here.
> >
> >I've cc'd the editor list to see if anyone's out there to do the review,
> >but in the event I don't hear from someone early next week (no later
> >than Tues) I'll review it myself!
> >
> >I'll make sure by pointing it out again right now that we will remember
> >not to edit the file directly, due to the tools you used.  Thanks for
> >the reminder!
> >
> >Talk to you soon,
> >Tab
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 20:29, Guru - wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Forgot the URL, http://www.karakas-online.de/gnu-linux-tools-summary/
> > >
> > > Please look under formats if you want to download a copy in a different
> > > format.
> > >
> > > Please note as discussed previously SGML is generated by scripts created 
> >by
> > > Chris Karakas, please do not give me feedback in SGML form or modify the
> > > SGML and submit it to me.
> > >
-- 
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
LDP Language Review Coordinator (www.tldp.org)



Previous by date: 27 Jun 2004 06:44:19 -0000 Re: gnu/linux tools summary review, Tabatha Marshall
Next by date: 27 Jun 2004 06:44:19 -0000 Re: gnu/linux tools summary review], Tabatha Marshall
Previous in thread: 27 Jun 2004 06:44:19 -0000 Re: gnu/linux tools summary review, Tabatha Marshall
Next in thread:


  ©The Linux Documentation Project, 2014. Listserver maintained by dr Serge Victor on ibiblio.org servers. See current spam statz.