Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Process: IS final release #1572

Closed
tkoeppe opened this issue Mar 22, 2017 · 6 comments
Closed

Process: IS final release #1572

tkoeppe opened this issue Mar 22, 2017 · 6 comments
Milestone

Comments

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

tkoeppe commented Mar 22, 2017

We should take some extra care to polish the final document that we send out for publication.

To do so, I recommend that we make final, ad-hoc adjustments in a separate branch that we never merge into master and that contain changes that we wouldn't normally make since they are very brittle.

Specifically, I have something like this in mind:

  1. Fork off the IS release branch
  2. Change page headers and footers to match the intended final configuration, switch out the cover sheet, add the Foreword page from n4141 (see C++ Editors folder on Google Drive).
  3. Remove all pagebreak-like breaks from the document: \newpage, \pagebreak, \clearpage. (Are there any more?)
  4. Leaf through the entire document to make sure that the overall presentation is OK (e.g. avoid problems like in figure out what's wrong with the "Allocator requirements" table and prevent it ever happening again #1571), but also paying particular attention to vertical details:
    • Floats are not too dense and not too far from their reference point. Most of our floats have "h" placement, so we don't expect them to build up. If there's pressure, add a \clearpage. Here-floats should probably not leak into the next section.
    • Check if the TOC has a clause heading on the last line of the page. Not sure how we could fix this; perhaps we can add some leading whitespace before the beginning of the TOC.
    • Check if synopses have page breaks in them that split multiline declarations. Synopses often offer opportunities for whitespace insertion or removal to move things around a bit.
    • Check if footnote are split across multiple pages.
    • Least of all, see if other page elements are unduly separated by an intervening page break: itemdecls, itemdescrs, examples. We may not have a lot of options there, but a judicious page break here or there may well improve things.

The review work can probably be executed in parallel, one clause at a time, since there is no vertical correlation across clause boundaries.

Pre-fork ideas (work that can be done on the master branch):

  • Double check overfull and underfull boxes.
  • Spellcheck?
  • Check all logs for errors and warnings.
  • Think about font substitutions.
@cplusplus cplusplus locked and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 22, 2017
@jwakely
Copy link
Member

jwakely commented Mar 22, 2017

Table 133 is not placed very well. It belongs to [re.traits] but appears two pages later in the middle of a class synopsis in [re.regex].

@jensmaurer jensmaurer modified the milestones: C++17, C++17 IS Mar 22, 2017
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

N4141 doesn't seem to have a Foreword, just a cover page.

"Remove all pagebreak-like breaks from the document": We don't have a lot of these; and the ones we have in back.tex seem for starting the various indexes on fresh pages. We don't want to undo these. There are two \clearpages in utilities.tex that look suspicious, though.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

I'm actually wondering whether we can make \itemdecls and \itemdescr stick together on a single page automatically, or at least not have a page break within a paragraph inside these.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Mar 22, 2017

@jensmaurer: I know we don't have a lot of page breaks. I count four load-bearing ones at the moment, two clearpages in utilities.tex, and two newpages in lib-intro and locales. I just don't want to forget about those.

Some better penalties for itemdelcs seem like a good idea. Not sure about tying itemdecls to itemdescrs, though, I have a feeling that would cause too much whitespace.

@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@tkoeppe: Agreed; my comment was ambiguous. I do not want to tie itemdecls to itemdescr.

@tkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

tkoeppe commented Mar 24, 2017

Added a note to watch out for split footnotes.

@K-ballo noticed that footnote 118 is split across pages 291, 292. That particular one could probably be fixed by compressing the example in 15.5p2 a bit.

Also footnote 120.

The https://www.ctan.org/pkg/fnbreak package is apparently able to emit warnings for split footnotes.

@zygoloid zygoloid closed this as completed Oct 1, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants