On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:37:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > write documentation or don't understand the API. Wrong API docs are surely > worse than not having no docs, aren't they? <snip> > If I thought putting it in policy would significantly improve the > availability of API docs in Debian, I would support doing so. But I don't > think this will happen, and anyway if people want to campaign for improving > our API documentation they can do that in any number of ways without asking > for it to be put in policy first.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 02:48:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > In my case, because of: > binary-without-manpage (1283 packages, 3616 tags) > I think we should demonstrate our ability to deliver on tasks we've > already promised to do before promising to do even more in the same vein. That's all true, but it fails to convince me that is better not to state this in the policy than to state it (only Steve's point about "wrong API docs", but I'm convinced it will be quantitatively small). My approach to this is first to decide whether API docs in the policy is something we want in debian or not. Then, if it is the case, to state it in the policy. Then see how this will be received by DDs and maybe start filing bug with patches for fixing the issues. I don't like thinking "naaaah, it won't work, so please don't try to enforce it". Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
