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

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.

No probs.

> 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
>   packaging.

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?
>  http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/onlyjob-guest/git2cl.git

Either solution is fine by me.

Please upload a new package to mentors so I can check and sponsor it.



Reply to: