DEP-0, DEP0 or DEP 0?

[Otto Kekäläinen]

Hi all,

I am the kind of person that gets hugely annoyed by things like this.
Is anyone else feeling it?

Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?

My eyes get sore when looking at commit messages like these:

* cd4d154 DEP 15: initial draft
* f54478c DEP8: Fix link to current specification
* 1f20e9d DEP-14: Version -> refname mangling: Escape dots

As the original DEP-0 used that in the title, I suggest we agree to
consistently spell it with a dash going forward. Anyone seconds?

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Hi all,
I am the kind of person that gets hugely annoyed by things like this.
Is anyone else feeling it?
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?
* cd4d154 DEP 15: initial draft
* f54478c DEP8: Fix link to current specification
* 1f20e9d DEP-14: Version -> refname mangling: Escape dots
As the original DEP-0 used that in the title, I suggest we agree to
consistently spell it with a dash going forward. Anyone seconds?

I always thought it was with a hyphen, indeed.

[Simon Josefsson]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Hi all,
I am the kind of person that gets hugely annoyed by things like this.
Is anyone else feeling it?
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?
* cd4d154 DEP 15: initial draft
* f54478c DEP8: Fix link to current specification
* 1f20e9d DEP-14: Version -> refname mangling: Escape dots
As the original DEP-0 used that in the title, I suggest we agree to
consistently spell it with a dash going forward. Anyone seconds?

I don't see "DEP-0" used in DEP 0?

It uses "DEP: 0", "DEP0" and "DEP 0" but no occurance of DEP-0.

Could you propose a DEP -1 to establish a recommended naming procedure?
Including how to escape negative numbers in the shortened form, for
which I suggest using DEP--1 to avoid confusion with DEP-1.

:)

/Simon

[Niels Thykier]

Post by Simon Josefsson
[...]
Could you propose a DEP -1 to establish a recommended naming procedure?
Including how to escape negative numbers in the shortened form, for
which I suggest using DEP--1 to avoid confusion with DEP-1.
:)
/Simon

Surely, the short form of DEP--1 would be DEP+1 since
-(-1) is +1. This would also ensure maximum confusion.

To add some real value to this thread. I am fine with the DEP-X variant.

Best regards,
Niels

[Jonathan Dowland]

Post by Niels Thykier
Surely, the short form of DEP--1 would be DEP+1 since
-(-1) is +1. This would also ensure maximum confusion.

I've long encouraged defaulting to prefix decrement operator in C, to
avoid some sequence point errors, so to continue that I would think
DEP--1 was better written --DEP1.

Joking aside I support standardizing on "DEP-1".

[Marc Haber]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:54:29 +0000, "Jonathan Dowland"

Post by Jonathan Dowland
Joking aside I support standardizing on "DEP-1".

This.

[Otto Kekäläinen]

Thanks for the comments!

Let's implement this. Please vote on which variant you prefer by
giving a thumbs up at

https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13
Unify DEP spelling with a dash instead of a space (e.g. "DEP-0")

OR

https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14
Unify DEP spelling with a space instead of dash (e.g. "DEP 0")


I apologize that this requires JavaScript to those who are concerned.
I don't know how to +1 in the GitLab API from the command line, so I
can't offer that as an option now, but I can provide direct links to
raw diff so you can at least read these without having to run
JavaScript:
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13.patch
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14.patch

[Mathias Behrle]

* Otto Kekäläinen: " Re: DEP-0, DEP0 or DEP 0?" (Sun, 17 Nov 2024 15:23:50
-0800):

Hi Otto,

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Let's implement this. Please vote on which variant you prefer by
giving a thumbs up at
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13
Unify DEP spelling with a dash instead of a space (e.g. "DEP-0")
OR
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14
Unify DEP spelling with a space instead of dash (e.g. "DEP 0")
I apologize that this requires JavaScript to those who are concerned.
I don't know how to +1 in the GitLab API from the command line, so I
can't offer that as an option now, but I can provide direct links to
raw diff so you can at least read these without having to run
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13.patch
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14.patch

I know that you are working a lot on Salsa CI and that you like and promote the
platform. Not all in the project are at ease with gitlab. So please avoid
to change communication channels and put pressure on people to use that
platform for voting purposes that have a meaning to the project. Thanks!

I vote for DEP-0.

Cheers,
Mathias

[Soren Stoutner]

Post by Mathias Behrle
* Otto Kekäläinen: " Re: DEP-0, DEP0 or DEP 0?" (Sun, 17 Nov 2024 15:23:50
Hi Otto,

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Let's implement this. Please vote on which variant you prefer by
giving a thumbs up at
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13
Unify DEP spelling with a dash instead of a space (e.g. "DEP-0")
OR
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14
Unify DEP spelling with a space instead of dash (e.g. "DEP 0")
I apologize that this requires JavaScript to those who are concerned.
I don't know how to +1 in the GitLab API from the command line, so I
can't offer that as an option now, but I can provide direct links to
raw diff so you can at least read these without having to run
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13.patch
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14.patch

I know that you are working a lot on Salsa CI and that you like and promote
the platform. Not all in the project are at ease with gitlab. So please

avoid

Post by Mathias Behrle
to change communication channels and put pressure on people to use that
platform for voting purposes that have a meaning to the project. Thanks!
I vote for DEP-0.

I actually think that using two merge requests like this with the thumbs-up
options is a really good way to get group feedback without the need for a
large number of emails. For simple decisions like this, I would hope we do
more of it.

[Otto Kekäläinen]

Your are right Simon, the body actually says "DEP0" and only title has
DEP-0 (
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/blob/master/web/deps/dep0.mdwn#L1).
The changelog even has "DEP 0".

Front page of dep-team.pages.debian.net spells it with a space.. The role
model https://peps.python.org/pep-0001/ also uses space, but dash (and
padding) in the filename. RFCs also use space. Maybe I should withdraw
proposal to standardize on the dash..

I don't care which spelling we choose, I just want it to be consistent.

[Soren Stoutner]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Your are right Simon, the body actually says "DEP0" and only title has
DEP-0 (
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/blob/master/web/deps/dep0.mdwn#L1).
The changelog even has "DEP 0".
Front page of dep-team.pages.debian.net spells it with a space.. The role
model https://peps.python.org/pep-0001/ also uses space, but dash (and
padding) in the filename. RFCs also use space. Maybe I should withdraw
proposal to standardize on the dash..
I don't care which spelling we choose, I just want it to be consistent.

While it obviously wasn’t standardized from the beginning, I am in favor of it
becoming standardized. Of all the available options, I personally like DEP-0
the best.

[Marc Haber]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Your are right Simon, the body actually says "DEP0" and only title has
DEP-0 (
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/blob/master/web/deps/dep0.mdwn#L1).
The changelog even has "DEP 0".
Front page of dep-team.pages.debian.net spells it with a space.. The role
model https://peps.python.org/pep-0001/ also uses space, but dash (and
padding) in the filename. RFCs also use space. Maybe I should withdraw
proposal to standardize on the dash..
I don't care which spelling we choose, I just want it to be consistent.

While it obviously wasn’t standardized from the beginning, I am in favor of it
becoming standardized. Of all the available options, I personally like DEP-0
the best.

I agree with Soren here.

And, the beginning of this thread belongs on debian-curiosa. I had a
couple of really relieving chuckles when reading, thanks to you all
for that.

Greetings
Marc

[Julien Plissonneau Duquène]

Post by Niels Thykier
Surely, the short form of DEP--1 would be DEP+1 since
-(-1) is +1. This would also ensure maximum confusion.

Nay. DEP~1

Post by Niels Thykier
To add some real value to this thread. I am fine with the DEP-X variant.

+1

Cheers,

[Holger Levsen]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
As the original DEP-0 used that in the title, I suggest we agree to
consistently spell it with a dash going forward. Anyone seconds?

I'm all for consistancy too, thus I would suggest dep0, as this is what's
written in the URLs.

Shall we document this as dep18? According to https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/
it's the next free one...

;)
--
cheers,
Holger

⢀⣎⠟⠻⢶⣊⠀
⣟⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄

Don’t believe everything you think.

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
I am the kind of person that gets hugely annoyed by things like this.
Is anyone else feeling it?
·
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?

I'm also all for consistency, although I'm in general more annoyed
when I see references to DEP-N in debian/changelogs, with no context
or human explanation to what it refers to, instead of say "machine
readable changelog", as I have a tendency to forget these context-less
numbered specifications (I think I've only ever involuntarily committed
into memory RFC822/RFC2822, RFC4880/RFC9580, and iso-8859?), and we do
not even have that many DEPs. :)

Thanks,
Guillem

[Gioele Barabucci]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?

Hi,

I'd say that this discussion reached consensus around "DEP-0".

In this thread 7 people stated their preference for "DEP-0", and 1
person for "DEP0".

The thumbs up counters on the three MRs [1] also show preference for
"DEP-0" ("DEP-0" +18/-2, "DEP0" +3/-0, "DEP 0" +2/-4).

Regards,

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/{13,14,15}

[Otto Kekäläinen]

Thanks Gioele for the stats. I noticed that 90% of the votes came in
the first two days.

In this system you can unvote and put your thumbs up on another
proposal if you want to change your mind now after letting the
question sink in for a few weeks, but please make sure you have voted
only on one option. Double votes will be manually nullified at final
count as there is no technical way to prevent it.

I have been pondering about this myself and decided today to cast my
own vote on DEP0
(https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/15) as I have
seen so much of RFC822, dep3, dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places.

I will count the final status on Dec 17th so that they have been open
for 30 days, and then follow up with MR to implement the winning
option.

[Simon Josefsson]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Thanks Gioele for the stats. I noticed that 90% of the votes came in
the first two days.
In this system you can unvote and put your thumbs up on another
proposal if you want to change your mind now after letting the
question sink in for a few weeks, but please make sure you have voted
only on one option. Double votes will be manually nullified at final
count as there is no technical way to prevent it.
I have been pondering about this myself and decided today to cast my
own vote on DEP0
(https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/15) as I have
seen so much of RFC822, dep3, dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places.
I will count the final status on Dec 17th so that they have been open
for 30 days, and then follow up with MR to implement the winning
option.

Wouldn't another option be to allow for multiple ways to write things,
as long as they are consistently written in the same style for the same
purpose?

I prefer writing DEP 4711 in text.

I prefer writing https://example.org/dep4711.txt in URLs.

I prefer writing [DEP-4711] as a reference keyword.

The main trouble now seems like the styles aren't used consistently, so
references can look like [DEP4711] and [DEP-4711] and [DEP 4711] in an
inconsistent way. Fixing that seems more important than uniforming all
possible expressions.

/Simon

[Iustin Pop]

Post by Simon Josefsson

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Thanks Gioele for the stats. I noticed that 90% of the votes came in
the first two days.
In this system you can unvote and put your thumbs up on another
proposal if you want to change your mind now after letting the
question sink in for a few weeks, but please make sure you have voted
only on one option. Double votes will be manually nullified at final
count as there is no technical way to prevent it.
I have been pondering about this myself and decided today to cast my
own vote on DEP0
(https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/15) as I have
seen so much of RFC822, dep3, dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places.
I will count the final status on Dec 17th so that they have been open
for 30 days, and then follow up with MR to implement the winning
option.

Wouldn't another option be to allow for multiple ways to write things,
as long as they are consistently written in the same style for the same
purpose?
I prefer writing DEP 4711 in text.
I prefer writing https://example.org/dep4711.txt in URLs.
I prefer writing [DEP-4711] as a reference keyword.

This summarises my preference perfectly, however, I'm not sure if we can
enforce this consistenly.

I originally voted for DEP-4711, but after seeing it in text (IMHO
ugly), I went and changed my vote for DEP 4711, which is very nice on
the eyes. However, that does not work URLs (nicely), and as you say,
"DEP 8" is not easily searchable.

So I fully agree that URLs and text should have different
representations, somewhat agree about keywording, but then we're back at
inconsistency, especially if everyone has to learn 3 rules about
writing…

regards,
iustin

[Charles Plessy]

Post by Iustin Pop
"DEP 8" is not easily searchable.

Interestingly, on DuckDuckGo, https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep8/
ranks 3rd when I search with DEP-8, but it ranks 2nd when I search with
DEP 8!

Have a nice week-end,

Charles

[Otto Kekäläinen]

Hi,

Post by Iustin Pop

Post by Simon Josefsson
Wouldn't another option be to allow for multiple ways to write things,
as long as they are consistently written in the same style for the same
purpose?
I prefer writing DEP 4711 in text.
I prefer writing https://example.org/dep4711.txt in URLs.
I prefer writing [DEP-4711] as a reference keyword.

This summarises my preference perfectly, however, I'm not sure if we can
enforce this consistenly.
I originally voted for DEP-4711, but after seeing it in text (IMHO
ugly), I went and changed my vote for DEP 4711, which is very nice on
the eyes. However, that does not work URLs (nicely), and as you say,
"DEP 8" is not easily searchable.
So I fully agree that URLs and text should have different
representations, somewhat agree about keywording, but then we're back at
inconsistency, especially if everyone has to learn 3 rules about
writing…

To me it totally defeats the purpose on agreeing between MR13/14/15 if
we continue to spell it 3 different ways. Can we just pick one
spelling that works everywhere?

This is what Holger elluded to, and made me personally change my
preferred option to DEP8 or DEP14 style of writing, which at most can
be spelled in small caps in places where large caps don't fit, such as
in shell commands, but there wouldn't more variations than that.

[Iustin Pop]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Hi,

Post by Iustin Pop

Post by Simon Josefsson
Wouldn't another option be to allow for multiple ways to write things,
as long as they are consistently written in the same style for the same
purpose?
I prefer writing DEP 4711 in text.
I prefer writing https://example.org/dep4711.txt in URLs.
I prefer writing [DEP-4711] as a reference keyword.

This summarises my preference perfectly, however, I'm not sure if we can
enforce this consistenly.
I originally voted for DEP-4711, but after seeing it in text (IMHO
ugly), I went and changed my vote for DEP 4711, which is very nice on
the eyes. However, that does not work URLs (nicely), and as you say,
"DEP 8" is not easily searchable.
So I fully agree that URLs and text should have different
representations, somewhat agree about keywording, but then we're back at
inconsistency, especially if everyone has to learn 3 rules about
writing…

To me it totally defeats the purpose on agreeing between MR13/14/15 if
we continue to spell it 3 different ways.

It does indeed. Note I didn't say "we should go with 2 or 3 ways", I was
saying, I realise that each format (URL vs text) has a preferred
representation.

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Can we just pick one
spelling that works everywhere?
This is what Holger elluded to, and made me personally change my
preferred option to DEP8 or DEP14 style of writing, which at most can
be spelled in small caps in places where large caps don't fit, such as
in shell commands, but there wouldn't more variations than that.

It is probably the best option, indeed. But I still think "DEP5574" is
worse to _read_ than "DEP 5574", or even "DEP-5574". Not that it doesn't
mean, we shouldn't use it, was just expressing my preference.

regards,
iustin

[Otto Kekäläinen]

[...]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?
* cd4d154 DEP 15: initial draft
* f54478c DEP8: Fix link to current specification
* 1f20e9d DEP-14: Version -> refname mangling: Escape dots

Results today:

https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/15
Unify DEP spelling with a space instead of dash (e.g. "DEP0")
= +7 (-0)

https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14
Unify DEP spelling with a space instead of dash (e.g. "DEP 0")
= +2 (-7)

https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13
Unify DEP spelling with a dash instead of a space (e.g. "DEP-0")
= +22 (-4)

I changed my personal preference from DEP-0 to DEP0 as I now consider
DEP0 the best option based as I have seen so much of RFC822, dep3,
dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places. However, that +22 for DEP-0 is
pretty large majority so I have to conclude it won.

[Jonathan Dowland]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13
Unify DEP spelling with a dash instead of a space (e.g. "DEP-0")
= +22 (-4)

This leaves the door open for us to migrate DEPs to JIRA in the future.

[Holger Levsen]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
I changed my personal preference from DEP-0 to DEP0 as I now consider
DEP0 the best option based as I have seen so much of RFC822, dep3,
dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places. However, that +22 for DEP-0 is
pretty large majority so I have to conclude it won.

"it won", yes, but what did it win? nothing relevant IMO, and I voted.

the sample is way too small to be meaningful, for a start. then his poll
was hardly announced anywhere. etc pp.
--
cheers,
Holger

⢀⣎⠟⠻⢶⣊⠀
⣟⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄

"Climate change" is an euphenism. "Global warming" as well.

[Otto Kekäläinen]

Post by Holger Levsen

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
I changed my personal preference from DEP-0 to DEP0 as I now consider
DEP0 the best option based as I have seen so much of RFC822, dep3,
dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places. However, that +22 for DEP-0 is
pretty large majority so I have to conclude it won.

"it won", yes, but what did it win? nothing relevant IMO, and I voted.
the sample is way too small to be meaningful, for a start. then his poll
was hardly announced anywhere. etc pp.

What sample is large enough? I thought getting 30-40 people respond on
such a topic is pretty good, but glad to read any concrete
suggestions/requirements for a good decision-making process for DEP
changes. Even though this decision is rather small, hearing your (and
others) thoughts on how to make good decisions is valuable for the
future.

I am also happy to wait longer if you want to do better announcements,
or I can execute your announcement requests if you have a vision of
what is sufficiently beyond "hardly anywhere" yet not spammy.

[Soren Stoutner]

Post by Otto Kekäläinen

Post by Holger Levsen

Post by Otto Kekäläinen
I changed my personal preference from DEP-0 to DEP0 as I now consider
DEP0 the best option based as I have seen so much of RFC822, dep3,
dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places. However, that +22 for DEP-0 is
pretty large majority so I have to conclude it won.

"it won", yes, but what did it win? nothing relevant IMO, and I voted.
the sample is way too small to be meaningful, for a start. then his poll
was hardly announced anywhere. etc pp.

What sample is large enough? I thought getting 30-40 people respond on
such a topic is pretty good, but glad to read any concrete
suggestions/requirements for a good decision-making process for DEP
changes. Even though this decision is rather small, hearing your (and
others) thoughts on how to make good decisions is valuable for the
future.
I am also happy to wait longer if you want to do better announcements,
or I can execute your announcement requests if you have a vision of
what is sufficiently beyond "hardly anywhere" yet not spammy.

My personal feeling is that -devel is the correct place to raise this
discussion (and a Salsa MR is the correct place to vote on it). Everyone who
wanted to participate had the chance to do so. I don’t see any reason to wait
before moving forward.