[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Nitpicking in the NEW queue.

On Monday, September 02, 2013 11:58:41 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Answering on a broader audience because I think that there is really a drift
> from ensuring archive integrity to massive and arbitrary top-down
> nitpicking.
> Le Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 01:00:17AM +0000, Paul Richards Tagliamonte a écrit 
> > Hello, maintainer,
> > 
> > I'm sorry, but I've rejected your package.
> [...]
> > This package is also really small, is there no other package this fits
> > into?
> Hi Paul,
> you have to understand how demotivating and infuriating it is to bounce from
> people who think that these files should not be in their package to people
> who think that these files should be in somebody else's package, with
> multi-week waiting times or waiting lines in between the answers.
> Earlier this year, I had another rejection email where I was asked to by the
> way clean some emacs backups or whatever from the Upstream tarball.  It is
> a matter of taste.  How do these comments guide us to undestand if the next
> upload will be rejected or not ?
> I would like that the FTP team please refrain from giving cheap side
> comments or ask cheap questions in its rejection emails (have you noticed
> that the ITP bug was originally submitted as a wishlist addition to another
> package ?) and stick to what makes the package fit or not fit for our
> archive.  Is a small package acceptable, yes or no, where do you draw the
> line, and please assume that the uploader acted responsibly, or if not,
> check first the facts before asking.
> PS: While I apologise for my error in the Debian copyright file, please note
> that a quick inspection of the package could have shown you that replacing
> the current content of the Files field by "*" would have solved the problem
> entirely.  I will re-upload "when I have time".

It would have been nice if you'd done such an inspection before you uploaded 
and wasted the ftp-team's time doing multiple reviews.

Conveniently, you have elided the actual rejection reason from your message to 
-devel and gone off on a rant about about something that was raised as a 
reasonable question.  

If you would prefer we not ask the maintainers questions when we have them, 
perhaps you would like it better if we put such packages aside and leave them 
in New until we have time to fully research them?

I didn't think so.

Please just answer the question, fix your package, and quite harassing someone 
who's trying to do work that's important to the project and doesn't need your 
demotivational speeches.

Scott K

Reply to: