Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 01:47:25PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I've a question related to that: what do you think would be best for the > > DEP-5 version published at http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep5/ ? > > > > Would it be OK to have a big fat warning there saying "this DEP has been > > accepted and is now maintainer at <URL>, please refer to that for the > > most up to date version of this specification"? > > Answering to self, I hereby propose the following patch for the DEP-5 > repository. I think that's good, with one quibble: s/separate standard/standard/. I think it's a little confusing to call it “separate” (from what?). It's a standard that is counted as part of Policy, so it seems simpler just to call it “a standard”. -- \ “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” | `\ —Melvin Kranzberg's First Law of Technology | _o__) | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpZOoiI5Frvz.pgp
Description: PGP signature