1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> | Apart from that this point seems to repeat much of the previous one, |
3 |
> | it introduces a new unfounded claim (users do read, but now too late) |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Read the linked forums thread and all will become clear. |
6 |
|
7 |
the forums thread advocates against the new unfounded claim, IMHO. |
8 |
|
9 |
> | > The news item will be named in the form |
10 |
> | > ``yyyy-mm-dd-item-name.en.txt``, where ``item-name`` is a very |
11 |
> | > short name (e.g. ``apache-updates``) and ``en`` is the two letter |
12 |
> | > ISO 639 [#iso-639]_ language code for the news item. The short name |
13 |
> | > must consist only of characters ``a-z``, ``A-Z``, ``0-9`` and ``-`` |
14 |
> | > (hyphen). |
15 |
> | |
16 |
> | Consider replacing hyphen with an underscore to ease parsing. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Mixing hyphens and underscores? That's just going to start confusing |
19 |
> things... |
20 |
|
21 |
I was referring to the item-name. It is defined to allow "-", whild the |
22 |
fields are also separated with "-". Hence I suggested to allow "_" in |
23 |
the item-name instead of "-" to avoid (possible) problems when parsing |
24 |
the field. |
25 |
|
26 |
> | In any case, elaborate on why supporting only OR was chosen and why |
27 |
> | other (probably investigated) options were discarded (and hence make |
28 |
> | my statement above unnecessary). |
29 |
> |
30 |
> The previous draft had an option for and or none-of modes. I took it |
31 |
> out because I don't think it's going to be anywhere near as useful as |
32 |
> one might initially think. |
33 |
|
34 |
I'd appreciate it if that would be documented and grounded. |
35 |
|
36 |
> | Elaborate some more on "No fancy formatting or tab characters". |
37 |
> | People might want/like to include a bulleted/numbered list or insert |
38 |
> | a small (shell) code example. Also make some note on the average |
39 |
> | length (number of paragraphs) and perhaps a predefined structure |
40 |
> | (ie.: introduction/abstract, impact, solutions/actions, |
41 |
> | links/more-information) |
42 |
> |
43 |
> These're things to be decided when news items are sent for review. Once |
44 |
> we have some real material there'll be a more useful way of judging |
45 |
> what is acceptable and what has gone too far. |
46 |
|
47 |
I guess then it's better to state that, and make no assumptions or |
48 |
partial decisions on it. If it is out of scope of the GLEP, make it |
49 |
like that. |
50 |
|
51 |
> | - what if noone feels like commenting on the submission? |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Then it's assumed correct. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> | - how do you know a certain dev is a competent English speaker? |
56 |
> |
57 |
> *shrug* If we ever get onto linguistics arguments, there're enough of |
58 |
> us with copies of Fowler and the OUP Style Guide to settle things. |
59 |
|
60 |
Then what is the point in requiring it is correct English? (Not even |
61 |
considering the big difference between UK/US English) You can and will |
62 |
not enforce it. Everyone writing such news item will do her/his best to |
63 |
make it sound like real English, and perhaps ask for help, but that's |
64 |
it. Hence my suggestion to put the doc writers in the loop somehow. |
65 |
|
66 |
> | Does portage only 'warn' and still continue, or does it completely |
67 |
> | stop when an unread news item is found for a package that is to be |
68 |
> | upgraded? In the first case, the 'preemptive' requirement is being |
69 |
> | violated, in the latter, the option for a '--force' or something must |
70 |
> | be discussed. (Users with multiple systems might already know the |
71 |
> | message, or users might not be interested in it since they don't run |
72 |
> | the application in production.) |
73 |
> |
74 |
> Portage only *warns* you if you try to unmerge glibc... |
75 |
|
76 |
Which means you won't be able to satisfy your "preemptive" requirement. |
77 |
|
78 |
> | Yes, and make it a requirement that all news messages get posted |
79 |
> | somewhere on public channels. |
80 |
> |
81 |
> I don't see any particular need to *require* that all news items are |
82 |
> posted to a specific place. |
83 |
|
84 |
You might be right, as the how, when and why of news items should be a |
85 |
completely separate thing, as I see it right now. |
86 |
|
87 |
|
88 |
-- |
89 |
Fabian Groffen |
90 |
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead |
91 |
-- |
92 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |