Ühel kenal päeval, L, 13.10.2018 kell 11:15, kirjutas Ulrich Mueller:
> > > > > > On Sat, 13 Oct 2018, desultory  wrote:
> > 
> > On 10/11/18 13:35, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Alec Warner wrote:
> > > > My reading of ulm's proposal is that it is allowed.
> > > > Ebuilds "shall" use the simple attribution, not that they
> > > > "must" use it.
> > > > To me that implies the simple attribution should be the
> > > > default, but the
> > > > complex attribution is acceptable in the ::gentoo repo.
> > > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposal?
> > > No, you've understood it exactly how it was meant.
> > Especially given the audience, "should" would convey that intent
> > more
> > clearly than "shall". [1]
> > [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that
> > there
> >    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> >    particular item, but the full implications must be understood
> > and
> >    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
> 
> LGTM, especially the part that the implications must be carefully
> weighed before ignoring the policy.

If this is something to vote on in the meeting, lets have something we
can actually vote on before the meeting, please.
Can you come up with a wording of all this then that we can confidently
vote on, worded suitable for such, with the intentions clear in regards
to MUST/SHALL/SHOULD/MAY and whatnot? Maybe without referencing an
outside RFC to define what English words mean (or worse - using its
definitions without referencing it).


Mart