On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Jakub Wilk <[email protected]> wrote: > * Aron Xu <[email protected]>, 2012-05-31, 19:45: >>> >>> (I'm not the maintainer.) >> >> Again, > > > Again? >
Again. >> please read other reports before claiming something is "not appropriate", > > > I read Developer's Reference 5.11.1, that should be enough. > But yes, I did read the bug log, too. > >> the maintainer of mod-proxy-html has said he will not fix the problem. > > > False and irrelevant. Also, the maintainer's answer was based of the false > premise that Apache 2.4 is going to be uploaded to unstable soon. > Your claim is a very weak one. If you have read the bug log, you'll know that I've pinged the maintainer about Apache 2.4 will probably not make its way to Wheezy some days ago. Also, you are not the maintainer and you can't ask people to be obligated to your personal claim about what is appropriate. If the maintainer is objective to the NMU, then it's he, who will speak up and I'll act as he wish. There is NMU notification, there is NMU delay, then you'd better not bother to do such blame. >> I don't think wasting your time by reviewing such NMUs and claiming "foo >> is not appropriate nor bar" is a good idea than working on more true stuff >> on your plate (I guess you have plenty). > > > There's a simple way to stop me from doing reviews of your NMUs: don't NMU. > It's a good idea anyway if you can't follow the basic rules. Thanks for > considering. > Another option is just ignoring your emails of such topic in the futre, if you want. You are not the ruler to those NMUs, and the maintainer whose package is being NMUed is. So what you said about "basic rule" is simply your rule. -- Best Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
