Hello, On Tue 04 Aug 2020 at 08:04AM -04, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > By the way, I concede that choosing not to censure the > human element of my changelog entry makes it appear that the decision > was possibly an "emotional" rather than "rational" one. Given the > prevalence of negative and degrading changelog entries (eg: "useless", > "good for nothing", "garbage", etc) there is precedent for > rational+emotional in Debian culture, and I think we can agree that > rational+positive_emotion entries are more congruent with the project's > ideals. I don't think this was what happened. It was simply that you did not make reference to our shared definition of the fields you were modifying. > I understand this is a qualitative and philosophical thing, and probably > outside the scope of Policy, but if I interpret what you've written > correctly, would it be this: Perfect documentation would be 100% > comprehensive, but most users won't read it, and were they to spend the > time reading it this would count as discovery? ...albeit probably not > joyful, because I've never heard anyone describe the process of reading > docs as such (except An Introduction to Programming in Emacs LISP. That > one is a joy!) Otherwise, the quick-start guide might ideally omit > certain details not only in the interests of brevity, but also to allow > for the joy of discovery? I've had plenty of enjoyable experiences with the Emacs manuals :) A quick start guide is not a manual however. So it could omit stuff in the way that you describe. >> Hard for me to say, to be honest, as I don't use smex or ivy or >> counsel. >> > > On this topic, would you like me to adopt smex? I've noticed that it's > your package and is in need of some work. If so, please grant me DM for > it. That would be great, thank you. Please remove me from Uploaders:. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature