On Sat 29 Feb 2020 at 09:38PM -08, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes:
>> One issue with using uppercased words is that people might think the
>> words have the same meaning as they do in RFCs, which they don't.
>> Your idea of marking keywords in bold wouldn't have this problem, and
>> maybe it would actually make it /easier/ to write patches because you
>> can see more clearly which of your words mean what.
> It does have the drawback of being either less obvious or a bit noisy in
> the text output format, though, which I suspect is reasonably heavily
> used.

Oh, excellent point (indeed, it's the main way I read Policy...).

> I'm not sure our definitions are that far off from the RFC terms.  We're
> not defining a protocol, so it's inherently a little different, but there
> are some clear equivalents.  And it would avoid reinventing a new
> typographic convention.
> A long time ago, Manoj proposed a deeper, more comprehensive fix: stop
> writing Policy as English prose and instead explicitly state normative
> requirements in some sort of numbered, clear fashion, and then add a prose
> informative explanation if warranted.  But I'm a bit dubious of that.  Not
> only would it be a ton of work, but the more formal phrasing will require
> repeating ourself a lot more.

Yes, it is not clear it would be worth it.

>> Thinking more, I believe that the issue you're raising here is separate
>> from what Russ is trying to achieve in this bug.  The problem you're
>> identifying here already exists in Policy, before Russ's change is
>> applied.  So maybe we should discuss it separately.
> Yes, I'm behind but that was the thing I wanted to say: I'd like to merge
> this change (I haven't looked at more recent reviews, since I've been
> distracted with work, so I don't know off-hand if it's ready for merging
> otherwise) and then tackle this issue separately.  But I do think it's
> time to tackle it.

I believe that there are enough seconds (from Sam and I) for your most
recent patch, minus the debian/missing-sources change.  If you're okay
with dropping that, at least for now, then let's get this committed.

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to