[Nut-upsuser] [networkupstools/nut] RFC: clarify and complete battery dates (#1063)

[Roger Price]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021, Arnaud Quette wrote:

> Le lun. 9 août 2021 à 15:06, Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> a écrit :
>       If nobody has objected after a week, then I suggest
>
>         1) Go ahead with the proposed additions
>         2) Give us a link to the new docs/nut-names.txt
> 
> Hi Roger,
> thanks for your answer!
> 
> I may be misreading your answer, or misunderstanding the new process, so please bear with me.
> on 1) though I still have the power to merge PRs, I don't consider that I'm the right person now to merge these:
> * PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1060/files
> * PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1062/files
> * PR https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1063/files
> @Charles Lepple and @Jim Klimov esp. your feedback is welcome
> 
> on 2) the resulting new docs/nut-names.txt will the the one in git master branch, once the above PRs are merged.
> 
> If agreed, I can proceed with merging these PRs, and link back the docs/nut-names.txt in the git master branch.

Bonjour Arnaud, Sorry, I should have been clearer.  The proposed RFC does not 
require any modification whatsoever to the NUT development process.  Nothing 
changes.  Whatever you did before, you go on doing.  However an additional 
effect is that one of the files in the docs directory, nut-names.txt, is a 
Recording Document, and when the development activity changes this file, it also 
updates the RFC.

It seems to me that RFCs by their nature are public and changes should be 
publicly documented.  A mailing list announcement is fine.  When I said

>         2) Give us a link to the new docs/nut-names.txt

my idea was that a list reader would be told where the new version could be 
seen.  But please do this in whatever way is most convenient to you and to the 
development process.

Should the process include an official "Yes we have rough consensus for a 
Recording Document update" from Jim?

Roger