Re: RFS: git2cl
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> 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.
> I reckon we can always talk first, before engaging the punishment actions. :)
My action was definitely not punishment, I'm sorry if it came across that way.
>> 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.
Are you talking about asciidoc here? If so the latest release was only
last September so I would be skeptical that the author is MIA.
If not, yeah that would not surprise me.
> 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've just done this now on IRC.
> 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
That would be an unreported bug in asciidoc, please file it.
> 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.
Personally I don't see it as a minor issue and if I lacked time I
would probably just not ship the file.
> 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?
Either solution is fine by me.
Please upload a new package to mentors so I can check and sponsor it.