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

[Arnaud Quette]

Le mer. 11 août 2021 à 16:23, Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> a écrit :

> 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?
>

Hi Roger,

thanks again a lot for your answer and clarifications. And for your help to
the NUT project.
I feel ashamed to be so far from it now :D
Still, I'll go ahead, merge the referenced PRs, and do an announcement here
once done, pointing at the updated nut-names.txt.

cheers,
Arno
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20210812/a0e14907/attachment.htm>