Re: git bikeshedding (Re: triggers in dpkg, and dpkg maintenance)
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: git bikeshedding (Re: triggers in dpkg, and dpkg maintenance)
- From: Ian Jackson <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:38:29 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20080229204907.GA3459@sirena.org.uk>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20080224210701.GA3234@artemis.madism.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20080226210635.GA16823@sirena.org.uk> <email@example.com> <20080228195141.GB10847@ouaza.com> <20080229152834.GA13296@sirena.org.uk> <20080229161117.GB12692@ouaza.com> <20080229204907.GA3459@sirena.org.uk>
Mark Brown writes ("Re: git bikeshedding (Re: triggers in dpkg, and dpkg maintenance)"):
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:11:17PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > But Guillem wants to review and understand the code. In this process,
> > he will rearrange the changes in smaller logical chunks.
> Ah, the impression that has been created on the lists is more that the
> patches were being NACKed and wouldn't be looked at until the logs had
> been rewritten.
That is exactly the situation. The changes have been stuck since
In fact, what is needed is not the patches being looked at. They need
to be committed. Anything reasonable that might be done to prove they
were right has already been done.
Waiting for the existing maintainers to review these changes is not
reasonable, if for no other reason than that they have had 6 months to
do so and have done nothing.