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

Re: First draft of review of policy must usage

On 10/25/06, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:

        I have replaced some uses of the word must when it was
 intended to be non-normative with alternate and equivalent wording,
 which makes it easier to grep for "must".  This still needs to be
 done for should (which I often replace with 'ought to').

It would be nice to have a comment, footnote or similar thing that
explains the differences between all these indicators:

Something like this:

* must / have to: you have to do this, no matter what.
* should / ought to: it's a very good idea to do this, but in some
special cases you might have a reason not to.

I don't know if these are the meanings intended.  All these verbs
sound the same to me, but it seems they are intended to have different
meanings, and I think it's better to make things as clear as possible.


Reply to: