Excerpts from John MacFarlane's message of juni 1, 2018 9:28 pm:
Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> writes:If you don't want the Debian package to diverge from the upstream behavior, please, at least, forward my wishlist bug report (with my patch) upstream!
What I meant to imply by my (recent) response was that no, I choose to not act as proxy for this bug specifically: One thing is copy-pasting your patch as-is, but another is refining it in dialogue with upstream and others that might chime in with helpful (or not) suggestions for improvements (or not).
Simple copy-pasting I consider unneeded thanks to upstream following along here, and promoting it more actively is more work than I am willing to invest in this.
This could speed up the upstream patch adoption process, I guess...
Nope: I get no special treatment towards this upstream - my impression is the contrary: Those passionately contributing "interactively" by also discussing and evolving their patches get attention over plain "fixated" patches, I suspect.
As upstream maintainer, I agree with Jonas's decision not to diverge from upstream. And I think Jonas is already doing enough work packaging pandoc; it's not his job to forward this to upstream.
@John: Arguably it _is_ part of my job as package maintainer to pass bugreports upstream. But I get to decide how I prioritize my work, and since this is a wishlist issue I choose to no priority at all.
If you care about the feature, you may propose it upstream on the pandoc-discuss mailing list or the jgm/pandoc issue tracker on GitHub. That is the way it will be most convenient for upstream developers to consider it.
Thanks for clarifying, John. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
pgpOptTDRIDj_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
