Re: Python Policy
[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20]
> Here's my concern: I don't want too much duplication of information in
> multiple locations. That's a sure recipe for bitrot, and I know no one wants
> to have to edit information in more than one place.
>
> Until now, the wiki has been the more convenient place to make these changes,
> but I agree in principle with your opinion that some of that information must
> be captured in policy. So here's what I suggest.
>
> For standards we must all adhere to, such as branch and tag names, source-full
> branches, the use of git-dpm, and maybe a few other points, these should go in
> policy.rst.
>
> The wiki page points to the policy document but doesn't otherwise describe
> those details. That way, there's only one place to change when/if these
> standards change.
>
> The wiki then goes on to describe common workflows, how to create new
> repositories, mr, etc. These aren't specifically policy related but are
> mostly there to help developers get started, or handle tricky situations.
>
> If you're in agreement with that split, I'll update both the policy and wiki.
if policy describes f.e. tag name convention and our tools create
correct configuration out of the box, then there's no need to mention it
on the wiki so yes, I agree with what you said. I don't even mind to
list only few things in policy now and extend it later, once we figure
out whats best for us (and work on wiki only for now), but at some point
I want a set of rules (a "standard"!) that will make my life as sponsor
easier and this is F*****G important for me. I will leave this team the
moment I have to read README.sources each day when I sponsor a package.
If you want help from me, make it easier for me to review your work.
(most of RFS emails I get contain "RFS: DPMT: foo version" subject and
nothing else, it works for me, I'm lazy and I prefer to read
non-technical books rather than RFS mails :P)
--
evil general Piotr
Reply to: