From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IxUIV-0004tJ-EZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:18:19 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lASLGmng017566; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:16:48 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lASLE8Xx014073 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:14:08 GMT Received: from gentoo.org (c-67-171-150-177.hsd1.or.comcast.net [67.171.150.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D4F65632 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:05 -0800 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Features and documentation Message-ID: <20071128211405.GA11126@supernova> References: <20071127192144.GP4368@supernova> <474D53CA.7060101@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: 90448972-2b8e-4b95-be86-cd76e686c74e X-Archives-Hash: 229fde26d2a717305af9966fcbff6c86 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