| 1 |
On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 08:08 +1200, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 21:47:11 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > So to summarize, instead of working together in order to follow a well- |
| 6 |
> > established policy, |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You're reading it wrong. If its "established policy", dev manual must |
| 9 |
> reflect that. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If the dev-manual writes "should" in one place, and implies "must" in |
| 12 |
> another for a same thing, then either: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> - The dev manual needs to be fixed |
| 15 |
> - The policy is not as you suggest it is. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> If the dev-manual is written correctly for the policy, then I expect he |
| 18 |
> is saying he'll follow it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
We've already established that the wording in devmanual is unfortunate, |
| 21 |
and I've asked him to submit a patch. It would be really nice if more |
| 22 |
than three developers cared to actually work on devmanual which is |
| 23 |
probably the most important document for devs. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> But as per the way the dev manual is written, he arguably *is* |
| 26 |
> following policy. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Stop taking the line of assuming he's trying to be belligerent. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
He says explicitly that he is against fixing devmanual because he likes |
| 31 |
the way he can abuse it right now. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives