"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:40:58 +0100:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> How the recent changes happened to allow USE flag descriptions in >> metadata.xml (which I'm not taking any position on now) gave me an >> idea. The Linux kernel requires that any needed documentation accompany >> all changes requiring said documentation -- part of the source-code >> patch must apply to the Documentation/ directory. Should we require >> that before you commit any changes, you (or someone) write the >> documentation for them and commit it or submit a patch at the same >> time? > > We're not talking about ebuilds here, are we? So what ARE we talking > about? Agreed with hkBst and Ciaranm on this one. Donnie, I'm sure you have the scope of what you intend to apply this to firmly in your mind, but it's not at all clear from your post what it is. Ebuilds? Doesn't make sense with changelog already there and generally used (when folks don't forget or screw the format and therefore the parsing thereof). Eclasses? OK, that makes more sense, but is that what you intended? Gentoo sponsored projects such as portage? Isn't that stepping on the various project's toes and don't most of them have such requirements in place formally or not as it is? Something else? Some combination of the above? It's kinda hard to discuss such a proposal without knowing where it is going to be applied, or to read such discussion without being sure everybody has the same target in mind (maybe it was discussed on IRC and since I don't normally do that I missed it... seems I'm not the only one, tho), and what it may be. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
