[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#741573: Two menu systems

On Friday 11 April 2014 18:25:01 you wrote:
> Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> > On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote:
> > > Can you come up with any examples where "should" is used in a way that
> > > _does not_ permit a maintainer to disregard it if it appears to be a
> > > more work than they care to put in ?
> > 
> > Sure: that's seems to be the general understanding of the word:
> > someone already gave the debian-mentors example,
> I'm afraid that's not what I meant by an example.  I meant a
> particular use of the word in the policy document.

I got that and I understand that you have a point policy-wide. But (see 

> >  Stuart had the same understanding, I had the same
> > understanding. And this seems to be one of the root causes of all
> > this mess. Do we have a general misunderstanding of the real meaning
> > of the word? Excellent, let's make it clear with this discussion!
> > [0]
> At the very least there is already some confusion here because
> different people are saying different things about (for example)
> doc-base entries and manpages.

That's my point. And if the policy wants to express something that at least 
some of us (which I thing it's not a small group) understand differently, it's 
clear we are going to have this kind of discussions.

> > Now allow me to use "should" as you understand it, and let me
> > express, for the sake of adding another possibility, another
> > "solution": maintainers "should" provide either the "trad" or
> > "desktop" menu, and once they pick one of them the other becomes a
> > "may".
> I don't think this is a sensible thing to say.  In my view the two
> systems aren't alternatives in that way so an entry in one system
> doesn't affect the need (or lack of need) for an entry in the other.

Well, at least we know we disagree here :)
> If one wanted to unify the two systems idea then what you suggest is
> one possible approach to that but for the reasons I have explained I
> don't think trying to unify them is a good idea.

Agree to the first part, and forcibly agree to the second because, at least in 
the implementation side, to disagree I should be ready to provide patches, 
which I'm currently not able to do.

Note I'm not considering non-technical issues for the second part (if there is 
any, I would need to properly re read that part to decide).

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: