| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> W dniu czw, 14.09.2017 o godzinie 23∶45 -0700, użytkownik Daniel |
| 4 |
> Campbell napisał: |
| 5 |
> > On 09/14/2017 11:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > W dniu czw, 14.09.2017 o godzinie 14∶58 -0700, użytkownik Daniel |
| 7 |
> > > Campbell napisał: |
| 8 |
> > > > If I had to find a nitpick, it's a minor feature request: can we get |
| 9 |
> a |
| 10 |
> > > > GLEP template file later on, to aid the initial drafting process? I |
| 11 |
> > > > didn't see it in the repo. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > I see your point. I always took some random late GLEP and wiped out |
| 14 |
> > > the contents. Maybe having a skel file with just the headings and empty |
| 15 |
> > > headers wouldn't be such a bad idea after all. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > I'm wondering if it belongs in the GLEP repo though. Maybe just |
| 18 |
> > > skel.rst? (given that www globs on glep-[0-9]...) |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > skel.rst would work I think; any file name that didn't disrupt |
| 22 |
> > automation would be good enough, though. No real preference. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> OTOH, I think we'll start by adding it to gentoo syntax packages for our |
| 26 |
> editors, so e.g. typing: |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> $ vim glep-0100.rst |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> you'd get the skel in place. I guess we'll see how good coverage that |
| 31 |
> has, and then decide if we need another skel in the repo. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
But what about people editing GLEPs on non-Gentoo machines? :) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-A |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> -- |
| 41 |
> Best regards, |
| 42 |
> Michał Górny |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
Archives