* Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030726 18:50]: > Le Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 07:56:35PM +1000, Matthew Palmer écrivait: > > Assuming the rest of the changelog entries are correct, you could deduce it > > was QA by the previous "orphaned" and subsequent "new maintainer" entries. > > I just think it's a nice, easy identification method.
> Sure, it's nice, but that doesn't mean we should make a rule out of it. > You have the right to do things that are not written/documented if you > think that they are helpful. Perhaps write: "It helps readers of the Changelog if you also notice that ...". (Or: It's considered as good practice if ...) > > Well yes, but the thing about common sense is that it's so uncommon. <g> > Sorry, but we shouldn't write down everything ... or we'll discourage > everyone from reading any Debian doc. It's a difference between rules (like policy manual) and a best practices guide. The last should be IMHO much more verbose. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
