> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 22:28:35 +0900
> From: Rin Okuyama <rokuy...@rk.phys.keio.ac.jp>
> I'm really disappointed by this. I do not like the way you got things
> going (and also I really do not like to write a message like this).
> I asked you to discuss further before rashly committing it. Didn't I?
> People actually provided some useful proposals to improve your draft.
> However, instead of finding a point of agreement, you shutted down
> discussion one-sidedly:
> https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-toolchain/2018/10/10/msg003307.html

Hi, Rin!

There are some good suggestions in that thread, and parts of the
thread became a bit of a bike shed.  We don't have a formal review
process for evolving changes before merging them into HEAD (though we
may be moving toward one with hg).

Perhaps it would have been better to see another iteration or two of
drafts, but (a) bike shed discussions can be long and tedious and can
discourage contributions, and (b) we can always revise README.md as a
living document -- no need to revert altogether when we can just edit
it to improve it.

So, what would you like to see improved in the document?

- We should definitely mention the relation of the mirror on Github to
  the master version in CVS.

- We can pick a standard style for the capitalization of example
  architecture names, or pick a different selection of them that
  doesn't make capitalization difficult, or change all of them.

- We can tweak the suggested build.sh incantation, and expand on what
  the parts of it mean.  Personally I use `../obj.amd64' instead of

Reply via email to