From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Blog: Guix packaging tutorial Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:39:41 +0200 Message-ID: <87y3b44n6q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <878t38t5gz.fsf@jnanam.net> <87muro9gz1.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <875zyct26s.fsf@jnanam.net> <87va6a9nt9.fsf@gnu.org> <87k1mp1cvz.fsf@jnanam.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58745) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAbC6-0001u4-L1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:40:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gAbC5-0005ON-Ng for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:40:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87k1mp1cvz.fsf@jnanam.net> (Benjamin Slade's message of "Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:38:08 -0600") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Benjamin Slade Cc: guix-devel , guix-blog@gnu.org Hello, Benjamin Slade skribis: > So for me, the list at > > seems more like a list of `desired output conditions' and the numbering > doesn't really correspond directly to the temporal ordering of steps > (with some of the numbered items probably being temporally independent > but perhaps some not, which is somewhat confusing). For instance, > references to documentation (gender-neutral pronouns) occur lower in the > list than linting, and so if one tried to follow the checklist > temporally, one could end up doing things which invalidated the > linting. Should formatting occur before or after linting? Or is it > irrelevant? > > For another instance, actually producing the patch (via `git > format-patch') is mentioned in the `preamble' but is not part of the > list (where reasonably it might occur near the end). And then there are > other things which are like steps (the actual sending of the patch) > which occur below the checklist. > > It might make sense if there were: > > A. a list of temporally-ordered steps for creating and submitting a packa= ge > - where one of big steps could refer to Pierre's build tutorial > - and where another step could refer to a list of things to check (B) > > B. a non-temporal list of things to check before submitting > (e.g. using gender-neutral pronouns in documentation isn't really a > step, but a `desired output' condition) Indeed, I agree (I think it used to be a list of temporally-ordered steps and then grew into that thing we have now=E2=80=A6). Perhaps one option would be to have a specific =E2=80=9CContributing Packag= es=E2=80=9D sub-section, where it=E2=80=99s simple to have an ordered list, and then an= other subsection (=E2=80=9CContribution Guidelines=E2=80=9D maybe?) with other it= ems such as gender-neutral wording. Thoughts? Would you like to give it a try? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.