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

Re: Must and should again

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:44:26PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 11-Apr-2001 Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > We don't really have any standard way of saying "you really should do
> > this as it's a really good thing to do, but there's no requirement to
> > do so (and hence not a reason to file bug reports)".
> I thought we were using RFC definitions of must and should, and thus 'may'
> follows.
> Must == have to do this
> Should == we recommend you do this
> May == we think it is a good idea, but is not always possible/sane/etc

You can also use words other than must/should/may, or make it conditional.
For example "Package maintainers are encouraged to write test suites for
their package", or "If possible, maintainers should avoid making a package
Build-Depend on itself".


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Reply to: