Re: congratulations to our ftp-master team
Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
>>> Anand Kumria <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>> A simple assurance that your package will be rejected from the NEW queue
>>>> if no ftp-master approves it within 2 weeks would actually be a benefit.
>>> It seems like, if that's the way that you want the world to work, you
>>> could already just pretend that this is the case. If your package has
>>> gone for more than two weeks, it seems to me like you could decide to
>>> treat it in all respects as if it had been rejected and just go on with
>>> your life. If it ends up getting accepted, you could orphan it, or
>>> decide to pick it up again.
>> When the ftp masters reject a package, they say why it has been rejected
>> as a rule. So at least that part can't be substituted for in this way.
> Yes, but that's a different conversation. Anand didn't say anything about
> getting a reason. The proposal was that packages be automatically
> rejected if no ftp-master approves it within two weeks.
> I don't understand how that helps anyone. You still don't get any
> explanation, and now there's not even a chance someone will find time to
> look at it.
Oh, I was taking "automatically rejected" as a statement of the
policy, not the mechanism. I was assuming that the rejections would
still happen in the usual way. I agree that if they are mechanical,
then they are pointless.