> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:05:27 +0900
> From: Rin Okuyama <rokuy...@rk.phys.keio.ac.jp>
> On 2018/10/23 2:33, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
> > 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.
> Well, it makes sense on one hand. But, on the other hand, your argument
> can be very dangerous if it is abused; I really hate an attitude like
> "Oh, discussion is falling into a bike shed! Let's commit it to shut them
> up!" Of course, I do understand you are not a person to do such a thing.

You make a good point -- it would be bad form to sneak unwelcome
changes in under the pretense of avoiding bike sheds.  This case seems
OK to me because, overall, I felt the response on tech-toolchain was
positive -- e.g.,


The reservations in the tech-toolchain thread were about details,
choices of wording, &c., which can always be improved in a living

> Yes, we must explain the relation between CVS master and GitHub mirror,
> at least. Others are minor problems although I feel it better to be
> consistent with our existing documents. For example, architecture
> names in http://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/ are not capitalized at all.

I tweaked the document a bit to just copy the opening paragraph from
netbsd.org, and to make a link to the ports page.  If you or maya
don't like it that way, feel free to put back the particular
architecture names.

(If anyone wants to put it back, for the particular names, I think we
should probably say either (e.g.)  `AArch64', `VAX', and `Motorola
68k', or `aarch64', `vax', and `m68k', depending on whether we want to
emphasize the branding or the NetBSD code name for each thing.)

Feel free to suggest more changes -- it need not be perfect before it
can serve a useful purpose, as a living document.

Reply via email to