On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:15:47AM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi, > > On 28.10.2012 08:03, Philipp Kern wrote: > > I'd prefer if such a tool could replace an existing one. Why not aim at > > replacing dput if there's a reason for it? > > As for us, we'd welcome that. However, that's primarily left to the > current dput maintainer and his interest in that. Have you talked to the dput maintainer? If so, what were their answers? If not, why are you claiming to replace their code? It's fine to be writing "something else" to replace older code; but it's fairly rude to be claiming that whatever you're writing is the "next generation" of that older code, unless you're either the actual maintainer of said code, or the actual maintainer gave their assent. Calling something "next generation" implies that the older code is suddenly outdated or no longer useful or something similar; that may be your opinion, but that isn't necessarily true. So if you don't have the original maintainer's agreement to call this the "next generation" of their code, please be a bit more creative and give it a different name. After all, that was also what the "dput" maintainers did when they rewrote "dupload". -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage.
Description: Digital signature