| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 05:20:38PM +0300, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 14 August 2010 17:00:38 Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 3 |
> [...] |
| 4 |
> > > > > - There is absolutely no reference to any patch sent upstream and I |
| 5 |
> > > > > have not seen anything on the upstream dev ml. |
| 6 |
> > > > |
| 7 |
> > > > Thats because I didn't. I've fixed more than 40 bug wrt LDFLAGS. Do you |
| 8 |
> > > > expect me to subscribe to 40 different ML and send them upstream? |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > you don't need to subscribe, there's usually an AUTHORS file with emails |
| 11 |
> > > you can use... |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > As I said, I thought that maintainers was responsible to do it since they |
| 14 |
> > follow all the bug progress after all. So according to you I should do all |
| 15 |
> > the work. Tempting |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> yes please; I consider not doing it a bit rude as the maintainers will _have_ |
| 18 |
> to clean after you. |
| 19 |
So do I. Fixing your package and you don't even bother to send a *ready to go* patch |
| 20 |
upstream seems like a bit rude to me as well. Perhaps, we do have a complete |
| 21 |
different point of view in this one. |
| 22 |
Recent example is Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn who thanked me for fixing his |
| 23 |
package, asked me to attach the patch so *he* can send it upstream. I thought |
| 24 |
that was the *default* policy. Anyway. I should talk to each maintainer |
| 25 |
separately when I fix his package. Seems to me is the best approach |
| 26 |
>[...] |
| 27 |
> A. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 33 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
| 34 |
Key ID: 441AC410 |
| 35 |
Key FP: AAD0 8591 E3CD 445D 6411 3477 F7F7 1E8E 441A C410 |
Archives