[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Features and documentation

[Duncan]

"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@g.o> posted
474D53CA.7060101@g.o, excerpted below, on  Wed, 28 Nov 2007
12:40:58 +0100:

> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
>> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an
>> idea. The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany
>> all changes requiring said documentation -- part of the source-code
>> patch must apply to the Documentation/ directory. Should we require
>> that before you commit any changes, you (or someone) write the
>> documentation for them and commit it or submit a patch at the same
>> time?
>
> We're not talking about ebuilds here, are we? So what ARE we talking
> about?

Agreed with hkBst and Ciaranm on this one.

Donnie, I'm sure you have the scope of what you intend to apply this to 
firmly in your mind, but it's not at all clear from your post what it 
is.  Ebuilds?  Doesn't make sense with changelog already there and 
generally used (when folks don't forget or screw the format and therefore 
the parsing thereof).  Eclasses?  OK, that makes more sense, but is that 
what you intended?  Gentoo sponsored projects such as portage?  Isn't 
that stepping on the various project's toes and don't most of them have 
such requirements in place formally or not as it is?  Something else?  
Some combination of the above?

It's kinda hard to discuss such a proposal without knowing where it is 
going to be applied, or to read such discussion without being sure 
everybody has the same target in mind (maybe it was discussed on IRC and 
since I don't normally do that I missed it... seems I'm not the only one, 
tho), and what it may be.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list