[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009



On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 02:08:04AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:

>>> In this case the reviewer clearly said what needs to be fixed and the
>>> version which got imported was fixed, so it wasn't that bad. Maybe it
>>> would have made more sense to wait for a fixed version, but are there
>>> actually any issues with what was imported?

>> None that I know of. The package owner told me a different story on IRC
>> and I was under the impression that the reviewer did not spot the
>> problem.

What I said was 'I had a package a approved that had the wrong font in
it' and while this wasn't meant as 'The reviewer didn't spot the error'
it can easily be understood that way (heck - it's probably very
difficult to understand it any other way). 

By the time we clarified this, Christophs first email was already out.

So: It's all my fault and sorry for the noise (of this third of the
issues).

> Maybe the submitter missed that. (That's a drawback of "fix
> before/during/after import please", the issues may end up overlooked. On
> the other hand it does save a pointless turnaround in many cases.)

I agree - while 'wrong content' sounds like a grave error it actually
wasn't as these kind of very simple font packages just include "*.ttf"
from the source-zip. 

Blocking the review for this issue would just have meant another round
trip with no added value.

So again: Apologies for bringing this up.

-- 
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven lankes net


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]