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

Re: Back to the topic of changed binary named



On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 10:50:01AM +0100, Stephan Lachnit wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 8:15 AM Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
> >
> > However, my point was that I want to know what policy ftpmaster applies
> > to new binary names and to focus on this topic.  I really want to know
> > that policy of ftpmaster and I really would like to see that documented
> > and I'm afraid that thread is drifting away from the original topic
> > that I will not get any answer on this.
> >
> > So again: I see a conflict in my interpretation of the mail[1] (original
> > posters again in CC) which suggests "an auto-approver" and what I'm
> > currently observing and I would be really happy if we can document the
> > policy for changed (and new) binary names of existing source packages.
> 
> Since I feel my mail went lost in the discussion, here again my opinion:

It's not been lost, there has been lots of discussion around the lottery
idea C, but in changing the email subject I believe Andreas is trying to
draw the distinction between the request to document *current* practice
and your subthread about possible improvements to the overall process.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: