1 |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Merely saying if we had some documentation snippet, or an end-quiz |
3 |
> question for this, QA could more easily/faster revoke access if someone |
4 |
> were to do this intentionally in tree. This could be minor motivation |
5 |
> for me to write such snippet, but it's definately not near top on my TODO. |
6 |
|
7 |
I think that something that is worth an official policy is whether in |
8 |
fact "<" or "=" dependencies are acceptable, or in general when they |
9 |
are acceptable. That isn't to say that we have to enumerate all |
10 |
possibilities, but there should be guidelines. |
11 |
|
12 |
I don't think there really is a clear consensus on this. It is |
13 |
definitely a can of worms and I don't think black-and-white is the |
14 |
right approach to take. While slotting libraries is often an option, |
15 |
that gets a lot messier when you're talking about things like header |
16 |
files. |
17 |
|
18 |
Rich |