On Nov 29, 2007 1:43 AM, Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forcing people to write documentation won't get it written, people
will continue to act like we just saw and either the rule will get
ignored, or someone will change the rule, or people will leave because
the rule is enforced
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea.
The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all
changes
Rémi Cardona wrote:
Alec Warner wrote:
On 11/27/07, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea.
The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation
On 19:10 Tue 27 Nov , Alec Warner wrote:
No, because this is not a realistic requirement, it's an ideal case.
People will just commit changes without documentation anyway.
Here's my understanding of what you said: Because people will break
rules and violate standards, we shouldn't have
On 11/28/07, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19:10 Tue 27 Nov , Alec Warner wrote:
No, because this is not a realistic requirement, it's an ideal case.
People will just commit changes without documentation anyway.
Here's my understanding of what you said: Because people will
On 16:43 Wed 28 Nov , Alec Warner wrote:
On 11/28/07, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my understanding of what you said: Because people will break
rules and violate standards, we shouldn't have any.
Is that accurate?
Kind of.
Most people follow most rules.
On 11/28/07, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16:43 Wed 28 Nov , Alec Warner wrote:
On 11/28/07, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's my understanding of what you said: Because people will break
rules and violate standards, we shouldn't have any.
Is that
How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea.
The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all
changes requiring said documentation -- part of the source-code patch
must apply to
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:21:44 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To sum up: No undocumented changes.
Define 'change'.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea.
The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all
changes requiring said documentation -- part of the
On 19:25 Tue 27 Nov , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:21:44 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To sum up: No undocumented changes.
Define 'change'.
That was the summary, so you should be able to get the information you
want from the paragraph above it.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:36:17 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19:25 Tue 27 Nov , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:21:44 -0800
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To sum up: No undocumented changes.
Define 'change'.
That was the summary, so you
On 11/27/07, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea.
The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all
changes requiring said
Alec Warner wrote:
On 11/27/07, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in
metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an idea.
The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany all
changes
14 matches
Mail list logo
