Sean Whitton <[email protected]> writes: > I still find myself feeling queasy about adding this must-with-caveat. > It feels like with the caveat you're trying to get something between > "must" and "should", but then rather than build down from "must", why > not build up from "should"? I would like to propose:
> Maintainers should strongly prefer using other overriding > mechanisms, instead of diversions, whenever those other mechanisms > are sufficient to accomplish the same goal. In other words, > diversions in packages should be considered a last resort. This sounds good to me. The argument for building up from should instead of down from must seems compelling. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
