Daniel Shahaf wrote: > It's not our business to fix their press release, of course, but if we > link to something, we should ensure _our_ readers will be able to tell > what we link to and why it's significant. If their press release doesn't > explain that, then we could explain those bits ourselves, or link to > a more technical write-up [...]
The Linux Foundation's press release is indeed rather content-free, even after we factor in that they have a different target audience in mind. If you have an alternative phrasing (or links to a more-technical write-up), please feel free to go ahead and commit that; I'm not wedded to the current text, and would prefer that these reports were less of a solo effort. Another solution you may wish to explore is truncating or otherwise shortened this entry — that would have the effect of deprioritising it, thus making the lack of hard/technical detail less of a problem when considered in context. Regards, -- o ⬋ ⬊ Chris Lamb o o reproducible-builds.org 💠 ⬊ ⬋ o