| 1 |
Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 2 |
> Is the above correct? |
| 3 |
AFAIK, yes. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 7 |
> I can understand that the system may have been dreamed up with this in |
| 8 |
> mind, and this certainly isn't an unreasonable design, but I don't see |
| 9 |
> the corresponding text in the GLEP. |
| 10 |
Which does not seem to be a problem to Ciaran McCreesh as he stated |
| 11 |
> So you're saying that you're attempting to use wording technicalities |
| 12 |
> to prevent an improvement to the user experience? |
| 13 |
(earlier this day, 00:38:39) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Mike already suggested that we set some news standards. I think we |
| 17 |
> should go further: after discussion if we do decide this kind of article |
| 18 |
> is valid news, then we should carefully reword some parts of the GLEP |
| 19 |
> and maybe even rename it. Adding a few examples of valid and invalid |
| 20 |
> items (plus explanations why) would be beneficial as well. |
| 21 |
Different forms of spreading news may never overlap, as this would cause |
| 22 |
arguments for no reason. |
| 23 |
For problems which are as easy to fix as this one, we got other ways of spread |
| 24 |
the news already. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives