@tasx I’ve made edits to the message based on your suggestion. What do you think of the changes now?
I think the parentheses around e are a bit much. It should look just fine without them, as e is widely recognized. Adding (the base of the natural logarithm) provides extra clarification, which is why I proposed it. You can, however, surround e with underscores to italicize it:
Raising e (the base of the natural logarithm) to a…
I’ve implemented the changes you suggested and edited the file accordingly. Could you please review it once more? How should I proceed with the request to change this? Should I raise a PR in the Java repository, and what about the other tracks?
Sure, I’ll review it one more time.
In the meantime, let’s give everyone else some time to catch up.
Hi @tasx,
I hope you’re doing well! I just wanted to follow up regarding my proposed changes to the Instructions.md file. Since it’s been about 14 hours, I was wondering if you had a chance to review it yet or if there are any updates on the process for raising a PR in the Java repository and the other tracks.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I appreciate your help!
One last change I would make is to leave out ‘multiplying the numerator and denominator by the conjugate of the denominator’ and simply mention the formula. This detail isn’t included in the original instructions and delves into unnecessary math. It’s probably best to keep it simple for now.
I’d still wait until the posts related to the instruction edits are moved to a separate thread by the staff. Here are three reasons for this:
- The original thread began with changes to the complex numbers tests, which turned out to be specific to the Java track. Now, the thread has shifted to discussing instruction changes not just for the Java track, but for all tracks, making it completely off-topic.
- For the above reason, it’s likely that some maintainers are no longer following the thread and may not see the proposed changes.
- The PR would need to be submitted to the problem-specifications repo with a link to the corresponding forum thread. Maintainers will likely propose additional changes on GitHub. If approved and merged, track maintainers can then sync the changes to their respective tracks.
1 Like
Thank you @tasx for your feedback on the proposed changes to the Instructions.md file. I’ve made the adjustments you suggested and would like to share a few additional thoughts:
- I’ve decided to leave out the detail about “multiplying the numerator and denominator by the conjugate of the denominator” from the division section.
- I understand the importance of giving staff (@mods) time to organize the discussion threads. I’ll wait until the posts related to the instruction edits are moved to a separate thread before proceeding further.
I appreciate your guidance through this process, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Additionally, I would like to request your feedback on the other topic threads that I’ve created recently whenever you have time. I am also eager to explore any other ways I could contribute to Exercism, particularly using my current fluency in technologies like Java, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and he Markdown features I’ve used for creating the Instructions.md file.
1 Like
As a maintainer of multiple tracks, skimming this topic, it seems like these additions are a welcome change to multiple tracks and thus there is at least some consensus to make the proposed change to the problem-specifications repository.
I do agree that it would be most clear to move topics out to a separate topic. If that doesn’t happen within a week, I would go ahead and link the individual posts instead. Because that repository requires at least three approvals, you don’t need to wait with creating a PR until you have consensus here. So give it a bit of time and if it takes to long, feel free to still make the PR.
Thank you for your input @SleeplessByte! I agree that moving the topics out to a separate section would enhance clarity and organization. I appreciate the guidance on the PR process as well. I will monitor the discussions for a bit, but if I don’t see any movement within a week, I’ll go ahead and create the PR linking the individual posts. Looking forward to contributing to this change!
@kahgoh, Thank you for accepting my previous PR aimed at improving the methods for the Java Track. I realized after submitting that I should have added my name as a contributor in the JSON file. To rectify this, I submitted a separate PR to include my name, which you can find here: Adding contributor for Complex-Number exercise by jagdish-15 · Pull Request #2854 · exercism/java · GitHub.
I submitted that PR three days ago, and I understand that the review process takes time, especially as everyone is volunteering their efforts. I hope it doesn’t come across as if I’m solely interested in being recognized as a contributor; I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to contribute and learn through this process.
Thank you for your understanding!
Since the discussions did not shift to a different topic after a week, I have decided to raise the PR on the problem-specification repository.
1 Like