Doc: CG Updated section 1.3 - experienced devs

Doc: CG Updated section 1.3 - experienced devs

Updated the section:

1.3 Summary for experienced developers.

Added UREFs for Issue Tracker and
Rietveld. Updated the information
about the patch review process.

[pkx166h, 2016-02-16 20:46:14]

Minor typos.

[simon.albrecht, 2016-02-16 21:32:12]

Some nitpicks there.
Thanks for the work.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
File Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:120: Google's Reitveld code review
tool.
This should read Rietveld.
Strictly speaking, it doesn’t _belong_ to Google IIUC. But given the close links
this is probably a legit simplification :-)

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:133: @item @strong{GIT branches}:
The official capitalisation is ‘Git’, I think.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:147: translation patches directly
to it aswell.
as well – two words.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:157: files) between released stable
and unstable versions as well as checked
Why the parens?

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:176: on the issue tracker; also see
@ref{Issues}.
‘see also’?

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:194: more discussion is needed,
left at @code{Patch-review}.  In all cases
Could this use @itemize?

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:216: compromise we have found.}
I’d prefer the former wording, except of course for the wrong time span.

[pkx166h, 2016-02-17 09:42:47]

Fix TexInfo syntax mistake

[pkx166h, 2016-02-17 10:03:18]

WIth Simon A's comments.

[pkx166h, 2016-02-17 10:04:27]

Thanks for reviewing Simon.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
File Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:120: Google's Reitveld code review
tool.
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> This should read Rietveld.
> Strictly speaking, it doesn’t _belong_ to Google IIUC. But given the close
links
> this is probably a legit simplification :-)

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:133: @item @strong{GIT branches}:
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> The official capitalisation is ‘Git’, I think.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:147: translation patches directly
to it aswell.
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> as well – two words.

Done.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:157: files) between released stable
and unstable versions as well as checked
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> Why the parens?

No idea. Fixed.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:176: on the issue tracker; also see
@ref{Issues}.
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> ‘see also’?

See also the dog.

Also see the dog.

No, that doesn't make sense grammatically (at least in English it doesn't).

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:194: more discussion is needed,
left at @code{Patch-review}.  In all cases
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> Could this use @itemize?

No I don't think so. There are enough on this page already and this single @item
encapsulates everything in that 'single' step.

https://codereview.appspot.com/287110043/diff/20001/Documentation/contributor...
Documentation/contributor/introduction.itexi:216: compromise we have found.}
On 2016/02/16 21:32:12, simon.albrecht wrote:
> I’d prefer the former wording, except of course for the wrong time span.

Starting a sentence with 'Yes' bothers me in technical writing. Does code
'reach' or 'get merged into'? Also trying to remove 'emotive' words (like
'unfortunate') which may not always be obvious to non-native speakers or those
that do not speak as good English as you obviously do. I probably need a comma
instead of a full stop.

OK I have re-written this slightly.

[pkx166h, 2017-09-14 08:49:20]

author	James Lowe <pkx166h@gmail.com>	
	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:37:19 +0000 (20:37 +0000)
committer	James Lowe <pkx166h@gmail.com>	
	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:55:17 +0000 (08:55 +0000)
commit	d40c9d6bdd81025c7c151e952712e85605d68c93