There are existing rules for P3 and F2 skips, and some unusual texts that use different workflows (the copyright registration renewals spring to mind). But processing a text through that won&#39;t end up as a final text at PG would require, IMO, notification of the proofers from the start, and approval of Louise; both of the experimental workflow and use of the squirrel time to manually herd projects that don&#39;t fit the existing flow.<br>
<br>I don&#39;t think this is an impossible request; P1 and P2 are rather flat at the moment. IMO, it would help if we had assurance from PG that the revised texts would be offered up instead of, or at least ahead of, the older &#39;popular&#39; editions.<br>
<br>-R C<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jon Hurst <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:jon.a@hursts.eclipse.co.uk" target="_blank">jon.a@hursts.eclipse.co.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Quick question to Don/Roger/Anyone who PM&#39;s at DP.<br>
<br>
Assume Greg has got us a scan that of P&amp;P. What DP rule are we breaking<br>
by skipping P3, F1, F2 and doing a simplified PP consisting of diffing<br>
against extant text and converting to UTF-8?<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gutvol-d mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org">gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d" target="_blank">http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>