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

Re: [RFR] templates://slim/{slim.templates}

> I didn't proof-read the kdm templates because I don't care about kdm,

Well, I don't care about 90% of packages I review here, you know..:)

> bugs in all other display managers.  Please can shared templates be
> announced in the subject line in future?

I will. Please forgive me in advance if I miss some.

> Looking back, I see only one comment that it was fine - so that's
> enough to fix shared templates in stone?

Also note that I also assumed that these templates have had a very
long time to be improved and therefore mostly considered that their
wording was mostly correct in general.

Here, I would say that only really important changes should now be
done if we can, in order to minimize the impact....and the amount of
work needed to reconcile everything.

Of course, if someone volunteers to rework kdm, xdm, gdm and deal with
the relevant translation updates, I have no objections. I just will
not do it myself for an issue which I consider pretty minor.

> Which is a "should" not a "must".  Please correct that.

It was a one-shot sentence. No need to correct it.

> 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.

My personal practice is to leave some delay between the ITR and RFR (3
days) so that possible conflicts can be resolved (in case someone
else also sends an RFR) *and* to leave the package maintainer some
opportunity to react in case (s)he considers that the moment is not
really appropriate for a review.

This is why I still suggest to use such delays. They certainly make
the process pretty long (about 40 days), but up to now it guaranteed
it to work pretty well.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: