While I am with you on hoping, someone shamelessly PRing slop just is not going to feel shame when one of their efforts fail. It’s like being mean to a phone scammer, they just hang up and do it again
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted exactly as how much we do not want to review your generated submission.
I know it is in jest, but I really hate that so many documents include “shall”. The interpretation of which has had official legal rulings going both ways.
You MUST use less ambiguous language and default to “MUST” or “SHOULD”
Right. I think when these appear in some documentation related to computing, they should also mention whether it is using these words in compliance with RFC 2119 or RFC 6919.
If its a bug, the PR should have a red line to confirm its fixed
If its a feature, i want acceptance criteria at least
If its docs, I don't really care as long as I can follow it.
My bar is very low when it comes to help
Amazing. I hope this gets tons of use shaming zero-effort drive by time wasters. The FAQ is blissfully blunt and appropriately impolite, I love it.
While I am with you on hoping, someone shamelessly PRing slop just is not going to feel shame when one of their efforts fail. It’s like being mean to a phone scammer, they just hang up and do it again
You MUST use less ambiguous language and default to “MUST” or “SHOULD”
Right. I think when these appear in some documentation related to computing, they should also mention whether it is using these words in compliance with RFC 2119 or RFC 6919.
Many legal documents use "may" to say you must. That's why i hate legalese...
ai;dr
proof of work could make a comeback