Quoting Sean Whitton (2019-12-28 10:53:14) > On Thu 26 Dec 2019 at 07:05pm +00, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > The notion that it's easier for a human to parse isn't universal. I > > don't find it's the case. Hard to follow copyright files can be > > written in any format. > > This has been my experience as well. > > For some packages, the traditional format is easier for humans to use, > and for others, the machine-readable format is easier to both read and > write. It is good to let maintainers judge which one will work best > for their package. (I think we should be optimising for our human > volunteers, because they are the lifeblood of our project.)
I ceertainly agree that our copyright files should be machine-readable in _addition_ to being human-readable, not instead. I believe our current machine-readable format is expressive enough to also be decently human-readable. Please help challenge me on that: Provide me examples of packages considered unsuitable for use with our machine-readable format because that would make them too human-unreadable. I would like to have a closer look at such cases. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
