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

Bug#891216: seconded 891216: Requre d-devel consultation for epoch bump



Hello,

On Thu, Jun 28 2018, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

>> How about a "should" ?  I think that most people won't ignore a
>> "should" unless they feel they understand why it's there.
>
> Yeah, that works well as a compromise.

I am not sure what is being referred to here, but the actual text
committed to Policy uses "should".

The 'required' in the title of this bug is perhaps ambiguous between
'should' and 'must'.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: