On Friday 11 April 2014 16:10:01 you wrote:
> Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer writes ("Bug#741573: Two menu systems"):
> > Then we have a "double standard" here. For some cases we (as in "the
> > project") consider "should" as Stuart and I described it before, but
> > we do *also* consider it a "may" for some cases, as Ian has just
> > pointed it out.
>
> 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, 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]
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".
There some things to note here:
- I have never thought of this solution before because , as it stands out, we
seems to be having different interpretations of the same word.
- It will also fall under what Russ expressed in [1]
- Yes, this means not everybody will get their preferred menu system in all
the packages.
[0] I also can understand if it's "clear" for you, but I'm pretty sure that's
not the common case.
[1] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741573#215>
--
Antiguo proverbio de El Machi: "Dado el apropiado grado de profundidad, la
ineptitud es indistinguible del sabotaje"
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.