Re: [RFR] templates://slim/{slim.templates}
Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Also, looking at the archives now I'm not on a train, xdm seems to
> > have gone straight from Intent To Review to Last Call For Comments
> > in March 2007 - when was the Request For Review?
>
> the templates trhat have been proofread are indeed kdm
> templates...where the process has been followed.
I didn't proof-read the kdm templates because I don't care about kdm,
I didn't have spare time then and I didn't know it was going to cause
bugs in all other display managers. Please can shared templates be
announced in the subject line in future?
Looking back, I see only one comment that it was fine - so that's
enough to fix shared templates in stone?
[...]
> > Anyway, if a buggy template is uneditable, please don't send it for a
> > review and waste my time.
>
> Well, from the TAF mail:
>
> "Please note that this is a shared template, so the review basically
> should pick up the template and translations from xdm and use it in
> slim."
Which is a "should" not a "must". Please correct that.
> ...which is what I would have reeated after the ITR mail you shoul
> dhave sent before the RFR..:-)
I was on a high-speed train, disconnected from the internet at the
time of reading the email and doing the review. I could have sent an
ITR but it would have arrived on-list at roughly the same time as the
RFR, so I decided that was pointless bureaucracy.
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: