On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 01:24:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 14:53:53 -0500, Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> said: > > If you are able to recognize that a given package description is > > inadequate, you are also capable of discerning *what* is wrong with > > it, even if you don't know what the package does; and you are > Umm. > Package: blacs-lam-test > Description: Basic Linear Algebra Communications Subprograms > This package provides programs to test your BLACS libraries. > Let us see. Whats is a Basic Linear Algebra Communications > Subprogram? What kind of tests are provided? Why should I want to > install this package? > I recognize this desciption is inadequate, mostly because I > have no idea what the package in question does. What are Linear > Algebra Communications? Are there communications programs, as > opposed to subprograms? Heck, I don't even know enough to ask > intelligent questions. There is a distinct difference between recognizing what is missing from a description, and being able to fill in the gap. The two acts are complementary. What helps maintainers is to understand what the questions *are* that users are going to ask about their package description. It's hard to know what questions are going to be asked when you already know the answer yourself; this is not something that can be changed through expressions of disdain. > This is not about people not turning out perfect description > for people unfamiliar with the package; I understand how one can be > too close to a package to figure out exactly what areas need further > explanation. But if you can't expand the *LONG* description beyond a > measly 80ncharacters, you are not even trying. Perhaps not, but it's not obvious that a 5-line description will be better than a one-line description. Indeed, the more useless text I'm forced to read, the more surly I become. I definitely think the emphasis needs to be on quality, not quantity. > And, BTW, you did not see me whining that people who > complained about the ucf man page provide me with a working patch to > improve it -- or worse, yelled at them for daring to complain without > providing clues, helps, suggestions, and patches. I took a poll, and > fixed the man page ti the best of my ability. Nor am I whining or yelling -- rather, I'm pointing out how the chosen strategy for getting these bugs resolved is suboptimal on a large scale. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpNFhSjUSGsL.pgp
Description: PGP signature