On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote: >On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when >called >> on it. If you'd just reacted with something like "Oops, made a >mistake, >> I'll >> revert it from svn and ask for it to be removed from experimental." >> (fortunately for experimental we can do that) then this wouldn't have >been >> a big deal. >> > >I get the impression that the complaint was "process wasn't followed" >as >opposed to "I didn't want that package in experimental". So unless I am >mistaken, there doesn't seem to be any need to remove the package from >experimental. In this particular case.
I think that generally when one transgresses on someone else's package in a way the maintainer doesn't like it's the responsibility of the transgressor to offer to fix it. It may well be that the maintainer would have declined the offer, but I think offering to return the situation to the status quo ante is appropriate. Scott K
