Re: v2: A proposal of a consistent set of clear rules and guidelines involving snippets, phases and patches.

[Maxime Devos]

On 08-08-2022 23:51, Andreas Enge wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 03:59:14PM +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> > Here's a v2. I've changed the structure to something close to what Julien
> > proposed, it looks a lot better now to me!
> thanks, it does! I still find it a bit too verbose compared to Liliana's
> suggestion, which I would prefer as a starting point of the discussion.

WDYM with 'still' here? The v2 patch I sent preceded Liliana's patch.

I'm not seeing a 'too verbose'-ity or a difference in verbosity myself

---

Something I liked about Julien's proposed structure is:

> [...] derive rules for specific cases, based on these principles:
>
> How do I remove non-free software? -> snippet because …
>
> How do I remove bundled libraries? -> snippet or phase because …
>
> How do I fix a build issue? -> patch or snippet if this affects 
> building from source, can also be a phase if the result of --sources 
> can still build
>
> A test issue?
>
> …
>
> This leaves some cases up to interpretation, but that's probably not 
> so different from "it's not an absolute rule". It's also much clearer 
> and quicker to figure out in which case you are. If not documented as 
> a case, you can fall back to the general principles.
-- i.e., if I want to do $FOO, I could quickly find out how to do it.  
In the v2 I sent, this was reflected in the subsections, each subsection 
is a 'howto $FOO'. Whereas the patch Liliana sent is kind of the inverse 
-- each @item corresponds to a 'what can the method $FOO be used for'. 
Similarly, in the v1 I sent, I followed a similar structure (an item for 
patches, an item for snippets, an item for phases).

As such, the v2 I sent seems a better basis to me.

Greetings,
Maxime.

OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature