On Tue Jul 16, 2024 at 12:10 AM CEST, Francesco Poli wrote: [..] > If this is an actual concern (on a second thought, I personally think > it could be!), some more explicit warning could be added to the [..] > Perhaps the background section should be clearer on this. > And a FAQ could be added.
I've added a note in the background, a comment in the MPL-2 entry, and an additional FAQ entry. > Personally, I cannot see anything else that needs to be fixed > in the [current] version of the technical note. I think it is > 'adequately' fit for its purpose... ;-) thanks, changed your review status to approved. > I hope that the technical note, once finalized, gets included in > package 'adequate', under the same license as the rest of package > (Expat). I haven't thought about licensing (the irony!). Expat sgtm. > Also, do you plan to automatically extract the incompatibility matrix > from the technical note itself? That would prevent the matrix (as used > by the "adequate" command) from ever becoming inconsistent with the > documented matrix (as found in the technical note)... I guess I could move it to the main branch, although I'm not sure that I'd bother with technically enforcing the consistency. the nice thing of having it in a separate branch is that one can subscribe to the branch RSS feed from salsa without having to be notified about changes in the adequate code. thanks, Serafeim
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
