On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 09:44:51AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:39:46AM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte a écrit : > > I'd have to look at the RC bugs. > > > > I'm looking for a hard commitment here > > Hi Paul, > > I think that if you focused on the compliance with the DFSG, then the NEW queue > could empty quicker. My comments, unless otherwise noted, are those of me, Paul, *not* the ftpteam. I wasn't speaking for them, and I surely wouldn't do so without saying I was. This is my concern, as a DD, about an old fork, who's utility has been superseded (IMVHO), and had many open bugs (as anbe points out), being re-introduced (with nothing but good intentions) only to be removed again, due to a dead upstream and tons of issues piling up. I don't question the motives, nor intentions - just the workload in maintaining something like this. I'm not going to bother continuing to push this argument, since it's none of my damn business, I was just trying to feel better about it. For the record, I'd never abuse my role in the ftpteam to threten REJECT to win an argument. That would be extremely scummy behavior, and I'm not doing that now. Never have, never will. As jmtd points out, I don't even have a package in front of me, so I really can't comment yet. I'll let this work it's self out, don't worry about me. Much love, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature