Re: RFC round 4: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines
On Thu, Jul 23 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 01:14:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
>> * Charles Plessy wanted to specify more precisely the format instead
>> of saying "RFC-2822 compliant fields". The discussion went nowhere
>> and nobody else expressed support for such a change.
> Hi Raphaël,
> my main concern is the discrepancy betwen the fact that the format does not
> comply with RFC-2822, and the following sentence: “The meta-information would
> be stored in a set of RFC-2822 compliant fields”.
> It is you decision if the DEP needs to contain or not a precise description of
> the format, but I would really recommend to soften the above sentence to make
> it match the facts. How about:
> The meta-information would be stored in a set of fields similar to the ones
> used in RFC-2822.
Why is this an improvement? Wouldn't this add to the complexity
of the parser (having to cater to implementing "similar") without
adding a whole lot to the humans?
> I think that it is important for the newcommers that our documentation
> is accurate and does not rely on obviousness that only comes with
I do not see an increase of accuracy in going from:
a set of RFC-2822 compliant fields
a set of fields similar to the ones used in RFC-2822.
Apart from compliant --> similar, which changes the format, I
don't see a difference in accuracy. It is a different proposal, though.
Life is the childhood of our immortality. Goethe
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C