On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:53:05AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> As the DEP is not yet in a state that it should be accepted, I don't think
> it's appropriate to ask the Policy maintainers to tie the timeline of the
> 3.9.3.0 Policy release to the DEP bugfixing.
Fair enough.
> Per my discussion with Lars, and as indicated in his previous mail, I will
> continue to follow the DEP process on debian-project to get bugfixes applied
> to DEP5 and will ask the policy maintainers to sync with the DEP when I am
> satisfied that the language is correct. (Note that I have no intention of
> driving any further changes to the *format*, but the existing *language* is
> too ambiguous for something that's supposed to be a machine-readable
> standard.)
I agree that the language could benefit from some more work. Thanks for
your work on that! Do you have any ETA for that language review to be
concluded? Or, alternatively, do you have any info to share on what
people willing to help with that should work on?
I ask because, as I've observed in [1], the current intermediate state
of DEP5 seems to be hindering its adoption, for reasons as silly as the
uncertainty about the versioned URL to use to reference the spec. If we
want to hope for a decent adoption rate of DEP5 in Wheezy — and I think
we should — either we finalize DEP5 ASAP or at least we try to smooth
some of its current rough edges.
For instance, considering you last (parenthesized) paragraph above: how
about fixing the versioned URL in the spec once and for all? If no
further changes to the *format* are planned, that should be a safe thing
to do.
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/?m=20110905164020.GA583@upsilon.cc
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature