On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:39:26AM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Paul Wise (2016-02-29 04:30:02) > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > >> IMO both in this specific case, and in the general case, the correct > >> technical decision is to track the actual upstream as a proper > >> Javascript package (supporting both browser usage and NodeJS, if it > >> makes sense), and make the convenience packages for other languages > >> use and depend on the proper Javascript one. > > Do I read you correctly that in your opinion it _is_ a severe bug to not > follow the actual upstream when available. I would agree with that. Yes. > So what next? Do I simply try assume it is a severe bug even if not > written into Policy yet, and see if others agree with that - enough that > eventually we can conclude that yes this should probably be written into > Policy? Yes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature