[flagged]
While it's fair to criticize that the release notes are hard to understand for end users, accusing the authors of "gatekeeping" makes no sense here.
Ironically, this statement is _also_ incomplete. It is missing key details that are meant to be inferred from 'free software project'.
> accusing the authors of "gatekeeping"
"Accuse" illuminates the core failure on my part. Gatekeep was the wrong word choice, as it implies _intent_. I do not believe that the release note writer has intentionally left out details.
I'm pointing out that many of us rely on too much assumed knowledge in our writing.
I personally make an effort to write and speak in manner that is understandable even to someone with low domain knowledge and context. I have observed that this skill has been important to my career. Because of this, I am particularly aware of instances where a writer has left out key details in their writing, because I often fill that void for the other stakeholders.
Normal users can stop at "a compatibility layer capable of running Windows applications"
It's not gatekeeping when the goal of the project is to allow binary interoperability with windows.
I should not have used the word 'gatekeep' in describing my thoughts on this topic. I'm stating that the first section of release notes could be improved by expanding the 'PE' acronym.
That's true, and there is even the Windows Preinstallation Environment (winPE) which makes it more confusing when googling "Windows PE module". Still found this[0] fairly easily.
[0]https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/pe-for...
“Most modules are built in PE format (Portable Executable, the Windows binary format) instead of ELF when the MinGW compiler is available.”
Eh maybe a bit. You could just Google "Wine PE Modules" and find out more if you are curious.