Re: Bug#139957: period at the end of short description?
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joey I can't second this because I think there can be cases where it makes Joey sense to put a complete sentence in a short description, and there is no Joey reason to outright prohibit those cases. I would be much happier with Joey something that said, If your short description is not a complete Joey sentence, do not end it with a period.. Does every little picayune detail have to have the weight6 of policy? manoj -- Live long and prosper. Spock, Amok Time, stardate 3372.7 Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#139957: period at the end of short description?
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Why should the short description not be a full sentence? Anthony Because making it just a phrase is briefer and conveys the Anthony same information. There's a lot of stuff to read through Anthony when looking through dselect, and the more we can minimise Anthony that the better. And a period somehow fogs up your brain? Anthony IMO, what policy is is a means of recording the current Anthony consensus on packaging issues amongst developers. It's Anthony necessary to have that written down somewhere rather than in Anthony everyone's heads, since there's so much of it and it's too Anthony easy to forget. Nearly 20% of the packages do not conform to this so called consensus. And the developers reference is a far better place to put these kinds of things than policy itself. Policy is also not a stick to shake at developers after they close bugs that you reported on the issue. Anthony No, it's a tool to resolve confusion amongst developers: Anthony Descriptions should be short and not include useless words Anthony or Descriptions should make grammatically correct Anthony sentences. I doubt that a period causes much confusion. We leave trivial things not required for integration up to the individual developer. Making policy a strait jacket by constraining developers to every little detail of packaging is just making the task more onerous, for little return. Anthony You want to inflate this to GR? Don't you have more useful Anthony things you could be doing? Quite so. Responding to silly policy proposals comes low in the list. Don't you have better things to do than make it possible to file 2000 serious bugs against packages? manoj -- Perl will always provide the null. Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#139957: period at the end of short description?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:58:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: make it possible to file 2000 serious bugs against packages? The patch in the bug said should and should not only... -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#139957: period at the end of short description?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:58:48AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Anthony IMO, what policy is is a means of recording the current Anthony consensus on packaging issues amongst developers. It's Anthony necessary to have that written down somewhere rather than in Anthony everyone's heads, since there's so much of it and it's too Anthony easy to forget. Nearly 20% of the packages do not conform to this so called consensus. Ah, so over 80% do. If that's not a consensus, then my grounds for fearing that you will attempt to impose some sort of insanely high supermajority requirement upon amendment of the Social Contract or DFSG are, perhaps, not so ill-founded. Even a 4:1 supermajority is too low. Amazing. -- G. Branden Robinson| If God had intended for man to go Debian GNU/Linux | about naked, we would have been [EMAIL PROTECTED] | born that way. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpLfY0lkWcbU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#139957: period at the end of short description?
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 00:41, Joey Hess wrote: I can't second this because I think there can be cases where it makes sense to put a complete sentence in a short description, and there is no reason to outright prohibit those cases. I would be much happier with something that said, If your short description is not a complete sentence, do not end it with a period.. Can you give some examples? I think you're probably right, but if we can restructure those cases such that they don't need to be a full sentence, then all the better. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#139957: period at the end of short description?
Colin Walters wrote: On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 00:41, Joey Hess wrote: I can't second this because I think there can be cases where it makes sense to put a complete sentence in a short description, and there is no reason to outright prohibit those cases. I would be much happier with something that said, If your short description is not a complete sentence, do not end it with a period.. Can you give some examples? I think you're probably right, but if we can restructure those cases such that they don't need to be a full sentence, then all the better. I think the main case would be a short description where someone has managed to cram two complete sentences in. No I cannot think of one offhand. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#139957: period at the end of short description?
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 11:41, Branden Robinson wrote:
I second this.
Thanks (and to Josip as well).
We should also discourage capitalization of the first
letter in a package description. (I.e., don't make it a capital letter
if it wouldn't be one in the middle of a sentence.)
I am rather neutral on this one. And from a somewhat brute-force
analysis of the Packages file on my system, there isn't a clear
consensus:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] perl -le '$|=1; open(F, q(/usr/share/dict/words)); my
@words = map {chomp $_; $_} F; while () { if (/^Description: (\w+)/) { my
$word = $1; if ($word =~ /^[A-Z]/ and grep {$_ eq lc($word)} @words) { print
qq($word);}}};' /var/lib/dpkg/available /tmp/capitalized-words
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wc /tmp/capitalized-words =(egrep '^Description'
/var/lib/dpkg/available)
47144714 28867 /tmp/capitalized-words
8596 60773 465658 /tmp/zshhwOH43
Granted, this is not a very scientific statistical sampling, as a lot of
the words which begin with a capital letter are also an acronym or a
proper noun; e.g. GNU, GNOME, X, LaTeX...
Branden, do you have an argument for why capitalization should be
discouraged?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
