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.