Re: More metaproblem

[Stefan Monnier]

> I think this requirement raises the bar impossibly high.  You cannot
> have a useful set of instructions that leave those out.  E.g., this
> whole discussion started because of such "nitpicking".

Actually no.  It started because of missing something important (for us
anyway) and which should be in ./CONTRIBUTE.

The formatting of references to revisions is a nitpick and should simply
not be mentioned anywhere.  We've survived quite happily for the last 30
years with "references to revisions" which are not machine-processable,
so if we leave people use the format they like, it's not going to be any
worse than what we've had so far.

> Neither do I see why would we need to restrict ourselves like that.  A
> document with a clear structure and a list of topics at the beginning
> can be longish and still useful.

People's attention span is much too limited for that.

> OTOH, having instructions scattered over several files makes
> discovery harder.

Agreed.


        Stefan