Am Mittwoch, dem 24.08.2022 um 12:08 -0300 schrieb Antonio Terceiro: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 02:47:14AM +0530, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > > Hey, > > > > Thanks for all your work in the past weeks but all (or at least most) > > of your emails are missing an important aspect of the RFS mail: the > > main intent behind the work. For instance, you say package X is > > updated and is lintian clean so here's an RFS, but WHY was this > > package X updated in the first place is something that's missing in > > your emails. I really suggest adding them as it's very important. > > > > We don't generally update libraries just because there's a new version > > available so having that reason behind your RFS mail would actually > > help in understanding the ultimate goal of updating the package. > > We don't? That's news to me. :) > > IMO we should always update everything to the latest version available, > unless there is a good reason not to do so (causes too much breakage, > disruptive update etc). Not keeping up with upstream releases creates > problems _for us_. I actually thought exactly the same. It would also spare us the trouble to have to do large updates whenever there is a transition. Instead this work is split into smaller chunks and spread over a longer period. Regards, Daniel -- Regards, Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org> | https://www.wgdd.de/ GPG-Key RSA4096 / BEED4DED5544A4C03E283DC74BCD0567C296D05D GPG-Key ED25519 / BD3C132D8B3805D1808123AB7ACE00941E338C78 https://www.fiverr.com/dleidert https://www.patreon.com/join/dleidert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part