On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/2/5 Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]>: >> 2011/2/5 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: >>> To me, "libraries [..] should be kept in [...]" implies that "the >>> actual library, ie: the file" should be kept in... >>> >>> That would need to be cleared up, to explicitly allow symlinks. >> >> Doesn't the word "should" imply that in well-grounded cases a >> different approach can be used? > > No it doesnt. > > I understand what Peter F was saying, reguarding traditional RFC language. > But lets make our regs readable to "common folks". > > Example: If you mean "usually", then say "usually". > To most folks, "should" == "must".
no "should == should", "must == must". If you believe "should == must" then this could explain some of the infighting on the release process. How can one argue against the precise application of language. Leaving wiggle room just opens the process up to boundary cases. If we go with "should == must" then what do we use for "should == should". Why have policy if your not going to use enforceable terms. (hold breath; count ten; sorry; rant-off) Sorry for the sharp reply but I've just come off the week from on-call hell and this seems a silly argument. Jon _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
