-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
Conversation
I have finished most of the spec! That was surprisingly easy. I half-suspect that I am missing something glaringly obvious. There are still some things that need to be improved, as can be seen in the FIXME and TODO tags. I am leaving those things until I get some feedback. I tried to use must/should/may consistently. It is a little difficult in some spots, so I'll need to do a pass-over of those words when finalising. |
I’ll look into it in the coming days. I kept some notes from the last time. Sorry for joining the partly late, busy times. |
Thanks a lot @silverhook ! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here are a few comments and suggestions from my side.
It took me longer than anticipated, but I hope it’s useful. Happy to provide pull requests, if needed 😃
I’ll tackle the tutorial early next week.
Thank you @silverhook so much for your review. |
Co-Authored-By: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a few comments related to the SPDX spec.
This lets those words stand out more, and allows the spec to be compatible with IETF RFC 2119. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 Reported-by: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]>
Valid-License-Identifier must be followed by a valid SPDX identifier. Co-authored-by: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]>
Reported-by: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Before we were running into a “MUST vs SHALL” problem on the same piece of info. I think my suggestion makes it less ambiguous, but I’m very open to better and nicer wording.
I have spoken briefly with @silverhook off-list. We are both struggling with the dimensions of this PR. Almost 150 comments spread over dozens of disparate conversations/threads. I am going to open separate issues for all identifiable threads I can find (some threads will be combined into the same issue). I am then going to close all conversations in this thread, and move them to the separate issues. I will (if it's not too tedious) copy comments over to the new issues so that the issues are not without context. When I've done that, I will post a new comment here with links to all newly opened issues. I will @ people involved in the threads. This will hopefully make it easier to tackle this PR, because GitHub's interface is currently more harmful than it is helpful. I will begin doing that tomorrow, but I'm writing this now mostly as a to-do list for myself. Figured I might as well publicly share the to-do list so that everyone is up-to-date. |
Two extra examples have also been added
Suggested-by: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]> Acked-by: Max Mehl <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]> Acked-by: Max Mehl <[email protected]>
The statement makes it clear that each and every file should have a comment header that contains copyright and licensing information. Suggested-by: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]> Acked-by: Max Mehl <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Matija Šuklje <[email protected]>
I've started work on writing a new spec. It's a heavy WIP that will need a lot of tailoring.
Fixes #7