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. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
