1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, L, 13.10.2018 kell 11:15, kirjutas Ulrich Mueller: |
2 |
> > > > > > On Sat, 13 Oct 2018, desultory wrote: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > On 10/11/18 13:35, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
5 |
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Alec Warner wrote: |
6 |
> > > > My reading of ulm's proposal is that it is allowed. |
7 |
> > > > Ebuilds "shall" use the simple attribution, not that they |
8 |
> > > > "must" use it. |
9 |
> > > > To me that implies the simple attribution should be the |
10 |
> > > > default, but the |
11 |
> > > > complex attribution is acceptable in the ::gentoo repo. |
12 |
> > > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposal? |
13 |
> > > No, you've understood it exactly how it was meant. |
14 |
> > Especially given the audience, "should" would convey that intent |
15 |
> > more |
16 |
> > clearly than "shall". [1] |
17 |
> > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt |
18 |
> > 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that |
19 |
> > there |
20 |
> > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a |
21 |
> > particular item, but the full implications must be understood |
22 |
> > and |
23 |
> > carefully weighed before choosing a different course. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> LGTM, especially the part that the implications must be carefully |
26 |
> weighed before ignoring the policy. |
27 |
|
28 |
If this is something to vote on in the meeting, lets have something we |
29 |
can actually vote on before the meeting, please. |
30 |
Can you come up with a wording of all this then that we can confidently |
31 |
vote on, worded suitable for such, with the intentions clear in regards |
32 |
to MUST/SHALL/SHOULD/MAY and whatnot? Maybe without referencing an |
33 |
outside RFC to define what English words mean (or worse - using its |
34 |
definitions without referencing it). |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
Mart |