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

Re: DEP-5: Patches pushed to the Debian Policy repository



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: pgp5dnoVZmhID.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: