Nilesh Patra [22/May 7:58pm +0530] wrote: > Hi Sean, > > As per discussion on the IRC, we are waiting for you to tell us which wording > you'd prefer out of all the iterations. > > Could you let us know? Consider this a gentle nudge. > > [18:41:04] <helmut> feels more like policy editors needing a ping here in the > sense that they might pick their preferred wording and we'd just second it > [18:53:21] <guillem> ack, AFAIR the new wording seemed way better, but given > that I'm not a native speaker (and the editors are) at this point of > nitpicking/wordsmithing, that's what I'd rely on them for :) > [19:51:54] <gargantua_kerr> I was under the impression that policy editors > will pick it up after you folks second it... > [19:52:18] <gargantua_kerr> I'll just relay this on the bug report
Thanks, I didn't realise this was waiting on us.
How about putting the 'should' first and the information later:
The ``Multi-Arch`` field should not be added to the binary package
sections for udebs because it does not apply to them.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
