On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Arnaud Quette wrote:
Le lun. 9 août 2021 à 15:06, Roger Price <[email protected]> a écrit :
If nobody has objected after a week, then I suggest
1) Go ahead with the proposed additions
2) Give us a link to the new docs/nut-names.txt
Hi Roger,
thanks for your answer!
I may be misreading your answer, or misunderstanding the new process, so please
bear with me.
on 1) though I still have the power to merge PRs, I don't consider that I'm the
right person now to merge these:
* PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1060/files
* PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1062/files
* PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1063/files
@Charles Lepple and @Jim Klimov esp. your feedback is welcome
on 2) the resulting new docs/nut-names.txt will the the one in git master
branch, once the above PRs are merged.
If agreed, I can proceed with merging these PRs, and link back the
docs/nut-names.txt in the git master branch.
Bonjour Arnaud, Sorry, I should have been clearer. The proposed RFC does not
require any modification whatsoever to the NUT development process. Nothing
changes. Whatever you did before, you go on doing. However an additional
effect is that one of the files in the docs directory, nut-names.txt, is a
Recording Document, and when the development activity changes this file, it also
updates the RFC.
It seems to me that RFCs by their nature are public and changes should be
publicly documented. A mailing list announcement is fine. When I said
2) Give us a link to the new docs/nut-names.txt
my idea was that a list reader would be told where the new version could be
seen. But please do this in whatever way is most convenient to you and to the
development process.
Should the process include an official "Yes we have rough consensus for a
Recording Document update" from Jim?
Roger
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsuser mailing list
[email protected]
https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
