On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 08:17 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 16:12 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 09:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >>> Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx) said: > >>>>> It would also be a good idea to have a few "shining examples" for people > >>>>> to copy when creating new packages. When we've done that, I'll start > >>>>> filing bugs. > >>>> Just file bugs for packages you think are overly verbose. Offer > >>>> alternate summaries in the bug, and a URL to your email for > >>>> rationale. > >>> I'm not sure this scales across 5000 packages. So it would be good > >>> to have at least *something* in the guidelines. > >> Well, the FPG is intentionally lax on %summary's, because we had wanted > >> to avoid getting lot in endless discussions on something which is > >> technically widely meaningness. > > > > Right, but maybe we could have a soft guideline such as: > > > > * Summary should aim to be less than 8 words > > > I generally dislike soft guidelines. Instead of the Packaging Committee > making a controversial decisions that contributors argue about, it > becomes the individual reviewers and packagers arguing about it on many > separate bugs.... Correct. > Which is not to say that I wouldn't vote for such a thing, just that I > usually ask: > 1) Why can this not be a hard guideline? (In this case, because it's > something that's better left to the packager). Because %summary's are technically irrelevant. It's free form one-liner text - Not more, not less. > 2) Why should this be part of the review guidelines, then? (So one GUI > tool can better support its interface). Any GUI tools must take %summary's as what they are: A one-liner string. Any GUI tool treating it as something else is simply overinterpreting %summary. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
