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

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs

Hi Praveen,

Having seen the unedifying thread on pkg-javascript I can see why you
might be rather defensive on this subject, but this thread was intended
as constructive criticism.

The packages do actually need a long description to make it through the
NEW queue, so this is really just about when that gets added.

If that's done before submitting the ITP then it gives a better
impression, and would also encourage people to suggest improvements.

I've responded to a few of these ITPs and have found the responses I've
received suggest that you've chosen your recruits well, so it strikes me
as a shame that they are underselling themselves by submitting ITPs in
this state.

It would probably help if they also wrote a line or two after the
descriptions about why they are packaging the package and/or any
concerns they might have about the wording or packaging.  Doing that is
much more likely to attract useful suggestions than sending bare ITPs
with only (often rather dubious) short descriptions.

I'm tempted to respond to each of these people's first ITP with some
suggestions, but you are much better placed to pass on advice to them,
so I think it would be better if you did it.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: