[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: v2: A proposal of a consistent set of clear rules and guidelines inv

From: Maxime Devos
Subject: Re: v2: A proposal of a consistent set of clear rules and guidelines involving snippets, phases and patches.
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 17:06:43 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0

On 08-08-2022 23:51, Andreas Enge wrote:

Am Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 03:59:14PM +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
Here's a v2. I've changed the structure to something close to what Julien
proposed, it looks a lot better now to me!
thanks, it does! I still find it a bit too verbose compared to Liliana's
suggestion, which I would prefer as a starting point of the discussion.

WDYM with 'still' here? The v2 patch I sent preceded Liliana's patch.

I'm not seeing a 'too verbose'-ity or a difference in verbosity myself


Something I liked about Julien's proposed structure is:

[...] derive rules for specific cases, based on these principles:

How do I remove non-free software? -> snippet because …

How do I remove bundled libraries? -> snippet or phase because …

How do I fix a build issue? -> patch or snippet if this affects building from source, can also be a phase if the result of --sources can still build

A test issue?


This leaves some cases up to interpretation, but that's probably not so different from "it's not an absolute rule". It's also much clearer and quicker to figure out in which case you are. If not documented as a case, you can fall back to the general principles.
-- i.e., if I want to do $FOO, I could quickly find out how to do it.  In the v2 I sent, this was reflected in the subsections, each subsection is a 'howto $FOO'. Whereas the patch Liliana sent is kind of the inverse -- each @item corresponds to a 'what can the method $FOO be used for'. Similarly, in the v1 I sent, I followed a similar structure (an item for patches, an item for snippets, an item for phases).

As such, the v2 I sent seems a better basis to me.


Attachment: OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]