| 1 |
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:50:05 +0200 |
| 2 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Maybe people should read them a bit more often, which itself can |
| 5 |
> be a documentation issue... but still.. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
But the problem has manifested that significant usage occurs in contradiction |
| 8 |
of the documented purpose. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Which either means: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
1. The documented purpose is wrong for the name people use, and we should change the docs |
| 13 |
2. The name of the feature is wrong, and we should change that to better reflect the docs |
| 14 |
3. We should create some mechanism by which the purpose for the name is unavoidably obvious to both |
| 15 |
the people who specify it, and the audience the specification is targeted at. |
| 16 |
4. We should abolish the feature entirely |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Though I think 4 is a bit of an extreme stance. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
However, Fixing 1 wont actually do anything useful, because its demonstrated that |
| 21 |
multiple different uses for the term are in play. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So that leaves only 2 and 3 as viable options under the assumption we retain it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yelling RTFM only works so much. |
Archives