Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Features and documentation

[Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>]

On 12:38 Wed 28 Nov     , Duncan wrote:
> 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.

Many of the replies keep asking for details -- details that don't exist. 
Apply the concept abstractly: things that need to be documented must 
have documentation available in the appropriate form at the time they're 
committed.

Some of these things are already documented fairly well, generally, such 
as changes to single ebuilds and eclasses. Others, such as global 
features, are not always. At this level of change, a GLEP is one form of 
documentation; the handbook or devmanual is another.

What remains unclear about this principle?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list