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

Re: Question for candidate Towns [Was, Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 03:02:34PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > I actually think that's a good result: far better to keep track of the 
> > problematic packages, than to just REJECT them with a reason like 
> > "doesn't seem like a good idea" and have them randomly reuploaded later. 
> >   It also seems like a better idea to let packages that don't seem like 
> > a good idea sit in the queue, rather than get uploaded and distributed 
> > around the world.
> I'm certainly not suggesting that they be rejected out of hand, and
> accepting them isn't the correct decision either. Currently, though,
> it's impossible to tell the difference between "This package is awkward"
> and "This package is being ignored". Making the distinction explicit
> causes little harm.

Especially when the maintainer uploading the packages is *not* made aware of
the fact that the package is awkward, and any input he may provide to making
it less awkward is just plainly ignored.


Sven Luther

Reply to: