On 02/10/11 19:02, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> Sorry but it really matters very little whether maintainer acks at all, *if >> the package fails to build*.
I don't agree with that - QA doesn't give anyone a silver bullet for killing whatever you want (or whatever you think should die). Maintainer must be *always* notified/pinged/mailed/im'ed/phoned/poked when his package is going to be masked & removed, if he's responsive then getting his ACK on the matter shouldn't be a problem, if not... at least you've tried. >> We're not talking about a single problem with a single package. > > Yes, you are completely right regarding the ebuilds. I do not dispute at all > that masking them is a correct way of action. > > However we are talking about interaction of human beings here. > > What I was trying to say: _If_ you have coordinated this with the maintainer, > it should be worth the effort to add two words to the email just to mention > this. It would even strengthen your argumentative position! > > In general, we have had the discussion a few times here already whether > briefness/conciseness or politeness/additional information is more important. > I agree that this may be a cultural thing. But then, normally the consensus > is to rather err on the side of caution... It's usually better to be overly verbose in such cases, so yes: if maintainer said it's ok then please mention that in mask message - it's just few keystrokes more. -- Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
