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

Bug#139957: period at the end of short description?

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

 Anthony> On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 10:28:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
 Anthony> Personally, I don't see putting stuff in policy as removing
 Anthony> lattitude. See also http://bugs.debian.org/102213 .
 >> That has other problems. What may happen then, since policy
 >> becomes optional with a note in a README,

 Anthony> No, policy does not become optional with a note in the
 Anthony> README. Policy becomes optional only when what it suggests
 Anthony> is technically wrong in the given situation. We're not here
 Anthony> to codify random opinions, we're here to document ways of
 Anthony> packaging that are technically _better_.

	Is there a difference? Who decides that the policy is wrong?
 If I can unilaterally decide policy is technically wrong, and say so
 in the README, and proceed to ignore policy, then policy is indeed
 optional. If, however, there are procedures in place to ensure that
 the opinion about the policy being technically wrong are widely held,
 then it would be easy enough to list the error in an non-normative
 errata document in the policy package/web page somewhere. 

	What are the checks and balances proposed? 

 Anthony> If it turns out one of things we put in policy _isn't_
 Anthony> technically better, well, it's much better that developers
 Anthony> do what _is_ technically better than blindly follow rules
 Anthony> like brainless automatons.

	Well, I still see no reason here that contradicts the
 statement that this makes policy optional, and largely irrelevant
 when it comes to tough or controversial decisions, since no decision
 is likely to convince everyone, and if people can just ignore policy
 when they disagree with it, the cooperative infrastructure is

 >> Making policy optional,and using that to include
 >> non-technical, trivial, and unnecesary detials into policy is a
 >> stupendously bad idea.

 Anthony> Good thing that's not the idea being talked about then, isn't it?

	I think it is.

 Anthony> But by the looks of things you've already gone into
 Anthony> defensive rhetoric mode, so there's probably still no chance
 Anthony> of actually discussing this, so just forget I said
 Anthony> anything. Geez.

	Interesting cop out. 

 Semper Fi, dude.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: