Re: Proof reading and related updates to Release notes?
Baptiste Jammet wrote:
>> Stretch vs stretch vs &releasename;
> ... and vs &Releasename; !
Just when I thought I'd worked out whether we were standardising on
"stretch" or "Stretch"... The answer at present seems to be that
we're standardising on "stretch" no matter where you use it in a
sentence... unless you roll a 1. Almost all of the cases of
&Releasename; appear to be in issue.dbk, and inexplicable.
Personally I would be in favour of declaring that Debian 9 is
canonically "Stretch", because it's named after something called
"Stretch". But for now I'm trying to edit the files into compliance
with the current standard.
>> On the &releasename vs Stretch vs stretch issue: personally I'm in
>> favour of avoiding the use of the &expando entirely,
>
> I think that "&releasename;" should be used where nothing change from a
> release to another, ie everywhere, except in "issues" & "what's new"
> chapters that are cleaned up for each new release.
It's true, in some of the .dbk files it almost makes sense - but those
are the places where it's pointless to specify a releasename. The
files that people ever need to edit are the ones where things change
frome release to release, and there &releasename just causes trouble.
Similarly, I was just noticing that the &debian; entity makes sense
in about.dbk (which someone might want to recycle for a derivative)
but not in moreinfo.dbk (which has lines like "further documentation
on &debian; is available from the Debian Documentation Project").
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: