Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ke, 2011-03-02 at 03:33 -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> If you mean that there is no need to update to an intermediate
>> version, makes sense to me. Anyway, getting any version ready to
>> include in the VCS (on a branch) seems worthwhile to me, and after
>> that, updating should be easy.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to update to an intermediate version.
> Keeping two versions of the draft up to date is not something that I
> find a good use of my time, I'm afraid.
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that updating to the final version
when it's ready should be easy.
> Then I'll wait until someone who actually knows tells me the proper
> format.
Russ Allbery, active policy maintainer and currently swamped,
certainly knows. He wrote the following, which can be found
earlier in this bug log:
I admit I'm not particularly thrilled about either of those
options; DebianDoc is fairly deprecated at this point, and
while Markdown is a lot simpler and easier to manage, adding a
third markup language, as mentioned, does raise the barrier of
entry a bit.
My long-term hope was still that we could all eventually move
to Docbook, but I've had zero time to work on that (or
anything else related to Policy lately).
I was only using common sense from there (since the topic seemed to be
stuck). If an authority is really needed to move things forward,
maybe Bill can help?
> It's unfortunate that docbook (in any flavor) is so tedious to work
> with, both at the level of writing markup and the level of producing
> readable formats from the markup. If it is absolutely necessary, I'll
> use that, but I think it is a mistake for debian-policy to adopt docbook
> in any form.
What do you propose instead? I think the problem seen with markdown
and its kin was that it is possible to accidentally trigger formatting
rules when talking about, say, the result from "echo `echo hi`".
That's not normally a big deal but it was mentioned as a possible
problem when you are writing a document that is meant to be normative.
> Perhaps it'd be easier to just use debiandoc for DEP5, for now.
Sure, that's why I presented both options. Personally, I just want
to see this get done.
Regards,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110302101240.GB15793@elie
