Am Dienstag, den 15.03.2011, 17:40 -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman: > Benjamin Drung <bdr...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 15.03.2011, 20:39 +0000 schrieb Chris > Coulson: > The normal process is to subscribe ubuntu-sponsors. > There's really no > need to convert it to a debdiff though, > although some sponsors will > request this for some reason. > I'm not sure why though, as adding a > changelog entry takes > an additional 10 - 20 seconds on top of the time > that the > sponsor should be spending on reviewing and testing the change > > before they upload. > > This culture of rejecting anything > good that doesn't have a debdiff > needs to stop, as it's > completely frustrating for contributors. There are two types > of contributors: prospective Ubuntu developers and drive-by > contributors. For the former it is perfectly ok to request a > debdiff. They need to learn the tools. For the latter it is > too much overhead. The argument for having a debdiff: In a > debdiff you have a real name and an email address. The patch > author gets the credits. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu > Developer -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list > Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe > at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu > > That or the sponsor spends another 30 with their editor and gives the > patch author credit.
You may have the name of the author, but not always the email address. Sometimes you only have a nick name and nothing more. PS: The quotation in your response is totally broken (see above). Is this a bug or misconfiguration in your or my email client? -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
