Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:15:28 -0400 as excerpted:
> On 02/24/2014 12:32 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to >> sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild >> >> > Should means required now? Man if I only knew that last week... In practice, I believe "should", in both the strict RFC sense and as normally used, normally means: "Not literally /required/, but if you don't, chances are pretty good you'll come to regret it at some point, and if perchance you don't, someone else almost certainly will." ... Which would seem to fit the current situation rather well. Regardless of whether the original actors yet regret it (I imagine they do but I'm not them), I'm absolutely positive there's at least one other person (me) that does, and I'd guess much of the list would add themselves to that list as well. What big ruckus might we have never known might have been, were only one particular "should" followed at the appropriate point... -- 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
