Bug#543417: README.source patch system documentation requirements considered harmful
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> I think having short README.source is better than having none. If
> there is a short one in normal cases, people can always look at it
> and see at one glance whether it is what they expect or if it needs
> special consideration.
My main concern is maintainer time spent adding and maintaining the
file in many packages outstripping time saved by (as-of-yet)
non-maintainers. A secondary concern is reader fatigue, where the file
doesn't document anything that someone would normally already be aware
of, so people ignore it in general.
If we had a generic set of packaging types that we could agree didn't
need to be documented in README.source (perhaps in devref, with
pointers to the actual documentation?), the README.source could be
reserved for things which actually were unusual, and would obviate
most of the concerns raised.
Don Armstrong
--
THERE IS NO GRAVITY THE WORLD SUCKS
-- Vietnam War Penquin Lighter
http://gallery.donarmstrong.com/clippings/vietnam_there_is_no_gravity.jpg
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: