On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Vincent Hanquez
On 2014-04-10 13:52, MightyByte wrote:
It seems like this issue has clearly been the source of disagreement/misunderstanding, so +1 from me too. The harder question is precisely what changes should be made.
English speakers (which many PvP original authors are) would have very likely the correct (and RFC2119 compliant) understanding of those words.
Not at all. Natural spoken English simply isn't that precise. From http://thesaurus.com/browse/should: "As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall." The PVP is not written in the style of RFC2119, so I think it's quite reasonable to interpret it as you would interpret normal English speech. "When publishing a Cabal package, you should ensure that your dependencies in the build-depends field are accurate. This means specifying not only lower bounds, but also upper bounds on every dependency." I as a native English speaker read that to mean that upper bounds MUST be specified on every dependency if you want to comply with the spirit of that document.
Suggesting that this was the source of disagreement/misunderstanding, is in my opinion disingenuous at best.
No. Now we see that this is exactly the source of at least one misunderstanding.
Otherwise I'm all for (+1) spelling out that the PvP is following RFC2119; there's no harm for being crystal clear about this.
Here we're in agreement.