Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>> A simple assurance that your package will be rejected from the NEW queue >>>> if no ftp-master approves it within 2 weeks would actually be a benefit. > >>> Why? > >>> It seems like, if that's the way that you want the world to work, you >>> could already just pretend that this is the case. If your package has >>> gone for more than two weeks, it seems to me like you could decide to >>> treat it in all respects as if it had been rejected and just go on with >>> your life. If it ends up getting accepted, you could orphan it, or >>> decide to pick it up again. > >> When the ftp masters reject a package, they say why it has been rejected >> as a rule. So at least that part can't be substituted for in this way. > > Yes, but that's a different conversation. Anand didn't say anything about > getting a reason. The proposal was that packages be automatically > rejected if no ftp-master approves it within two weeks. > > I don't understand how that helps anyone. You still don't get any > explanation, and now there's not even a chance someone will find time to > look at it.
Oh, I was taking "automatically rejected" as a statement of the policy, not the mechanism. I was assuming that the rejections would still happen in the usual way. I agree that if they are mechanical, then they are pointless. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
