| 1 |
On 10/11/2018 08:24 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:09:39 -0400 Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:24 PM Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 19:35:13 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>> My reading of ulm's proposal is that it is allowed. |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> Ebuilds "shall" use the simple attribution, not that they "must" use |
| 11 |
>>> it. |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>> To me that implies the simple attribution should be the default, but |
| 14 |
>>> the |
| 15 |
>>>>> complex attribution is acceptable in the ::gentoo repo. |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposal? |
| 18 |
>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>> No, you've understood it exactly how it was meant. |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> Then please write this explicitly in the proposed change. Right now |
| 22 |
>>> it is only "shall" vs "must" difference which may confuse people |
| 23 |
>>> and create misunderstanding in future. |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> If we update the wording, are you happy with the proposal now that we have |
| 27 |
>> a shared understanding of its intent? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Yes, I'll be happy as long as alternate form (explicit authors list |
| 30 |
> with optional "and others") will be allowed with clear wording. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Best regards, |
| 33 |
> Andrew Savchenko |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
That's a good clarification on the meaning, but the |
| 37 |
simplified attribution itself is still kinda vague. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
(for reasons which I struggled to summarize clearly) |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
(sorry about that) |
Archives