Must/should/may
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:14:36AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> (3) Rewrite policy so that it's more comprehensible: its ordering
> (merger of policy + packaging) is really hard work.
> When I'm doing (3), I will make the changes to MUST and SHOULD which
> I've suggested, and will present it to this list for ratification. If
> the whole shebang is approved, then it can go in. But I don't want to
> put in the effort to make the changes at this point.
Honestly, I think any changes to Must/Should/May need more discussion. I'm
becoming increasingly wary of leaving it in policy.sgml: there's already
two instances of shoulds becoming musts without any formal proposal or
a by your leave or anything. That's *completely* wrong and distracting,
and shouldn't *ever* happen. I can't see any reason not to expect it
to keep happening though with what you've proposed: adding or losing a
"(*)" seems at least as easy as sneakily changing a "must" to a "should"
or vice-versa.
One way of avoiding that would be to put the RC policy issues into a
separate "Release goals" document, and not having the policy editors
make even typographical changes to that without an appropriately seconded
amendment.
A separate document would probably be quite convenient, imo. But it'd be
hard to keep in sync with policy itself, without ending up repeating policy.
Is there any way to do cross document links, so you can say something like
(1) Packages must include copyright and changelogs
(see <a href="policy#copyrightchangelog">)
and have it be nicely typeset?
Cheers,
aj
--
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: