On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:35:31AM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> My patch had other changes, too, that we cam to a consensus on. Any chance
> they'll be added, or is Ziggy just plain too busy? ;-)
Ziggy is busy, and he's working on having the by-number.html, by-group.html
and by-author.html p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The most common format I've seen in the field so far is to have "Status:
> foo" up with the maintainer and version info, where it's easily seen.
> Can we do this instead of a separate section?
Yes, my original patch made it a separate section, and then we all came to a
The most common format I've seen in the field so far is to have "Status:
foo" up with the maintainer and version info, where it's easily seen.
Can we do this instead of a separate section? And can we make it
required, please?
K.
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au
Nat Torkington writes:
> Mark-Jason Dominus writes:
> > RFC should have a section that addresses the feasibility of
> > translating perl5 to perl6 code if the proposed change is adopted.
> > This section should be required.
>
> I agree.
>
> Ziggy, want to patch the sample RFC and the RFC format
