Le jeudi 15 novembre 2007 à 11:09 +0100, Nils Philippsen a écrit :
> On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 13:32 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Actually, at some point the FPC made an effort to merge the
> > ReviewGuidelines and the PackagingGuidelines so that the two were
> > different views on the same thing. One is a checklist of problems to
> > check. The other gives reasoning and notes exceptions to those rules.
>
> I think this is unnecessary redundancy. Couldn't there be one document
> ("PackagingReviewCookBook") that uses phrases like "<X> MUST be <Y>
> unless <some exception>"? That would serve both packagers and reviewers
> and would link to other pages containing the reasons if needed.
If we want to maintain two different views a table with a "reviewer" and
"packager" columns would make sure the two views are always in sync. I
used this kind of dual-view trick for the Fonts SIG guidelines I hope
FPC will approve next week (if it will have recovered from DST changes)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/SpecTemplate
(my dual view is "spec directives" and "comments" but it could have been
"packager" and "reviewer" too)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
