Re: Improper NMU (Re: NMU for libquota-perl)
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> This is ridiculous. An NMU is not a punishment for bad maintainers,
> it's an offer of help to help you catch up in your Debian work.
>
> No one should be offended by an NMU.
... and might I add, that in the case of documentation, it should be
actively sought after? (From each and every reader?)
That is, insofar as text presentation (grammar; syntax; orthography;
punctuation; etc.) is concerned; factual content of the text should be
subject to discussion with the author[s] of the documentation. Although
when information given is plain wrong, or out of date, I'm all in favour
of instantaneous amendment by the reader without reference to the author.
(I speak in knowledge of cause; I'm guilty of not updating out-of-date
information myself in most documents I maintain.)
In this respect, maintainership of documentation is vastly different to
maintainership of code; but the basic principle of intervention to
*help* (and not obliquely castigate), holds true.
msw
--
Martin Wheeler - StarTEXT - Glastonbury - BA6 9PH - England
msw@startext.demon.co.uk http://startext.demon.co.uk/
GPG pub key:8D6B948B ECC6 D98E 4CC8 60E3 7E32 D594 BB27 3368 8D6B 948B
- Share your knowledge. It's a way of achieving immortality. -
Reply to: