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

Re: RFS: git2cl

Hi Paul,

My apologies, I didn't mean to be rude for not replyng - I only noticed this 
email of yours just now. Sorry for missing it.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:56:55 Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > However you failed to clearly articulate the requirements you imposed on
> > me before taking action, neither were you willing to discuss the
> > possible solutions.
> I suppose that was unfair of me, my apologies.

Thank you. In retrospect I would expect you'd say something like "I can only 
accept the package if you do ...something..." or if we discuss the alternative 
solutions like the one I've chosen (to drop the generated html and only 
package plain text source). 

I'm sorry for reacting too emotionally. 
I reckon we can always talk first, before engaging the punishment actions. :)

> How about the following compromise:
> File a bug (preferably with patch) on asciidoc about using the
> current time instead of the modification time of the input file.

This wouldn't be a problem with responsive upstream. 
I already tried to contact him but he is not answering to emails.
This was also confirmed by other people who tried to reach him.

But wouldn't you agree that generated HTML file with few paragraphs of plain 
text is unnecessary duplication which we can safely drop?

> Ping the asciidoc uploader (formorer) about fixing #637006.

Sure but I'm not too concerned about this.
I think two issues I have are 

1. Changing the meaning of document by updating a date which will reads
   like if upstream updated something in the document on the date of

2. The amount of time one would spend for relatively simple
   and straightforward packaging. 
   Perfectionism is close to my heart. 
   I'd like to ship the package as perfect as I can, and I'm not against
   regeneration of this file (without altering date).
   But how much time and effort one can afford in order to regenerate
   single HTML file? 
   It may simply not worth the effort and I suspect that's might be a
   reasonable consideration.
   Moreover, if you're responsible for more than one package and other
   packages have more serious issues to resolve, wouldn't you close your
   eyes on this minor problem and try to address something more important
   first? In the end it may be a prioritising issue.

> Workaround this bug by running date -r on the source file and sed in
> debian/rules to replace the date after the HTML file is generated.

As a last resort I can do that. 
Would you prefer this solution to dropping the file as I did in my commit on
 7 of December?


> Then I upload the package.

That will be nice, thank you very much, I'll be looking towards your reply.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: