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

Re: Approval needed: fftw3



On Sat, 07 May 2005 12:25:01 -0400, Toshio wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 16:21 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 May 2005 09:24:24 -0400, Ed Hill wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 08:15 -0400, Chris Ricker wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Ed Hill wrote:
> > > > > I can't find anything the matter with it so please add my name to a
> > > > > "reviewed and approved-by" message.
> > > > 
> > > > My understanding of the new-and-improved package submission process is 
> > > > that you (Ed), not Quentin, would be the one to send the APPROVED message 
> > > > to f-e-commits. I may well have missed something though ;-)
> > > 
> > > Hi Chris,
> > > 
> > > Is that true?  If so, I'll try to follow it next time around.
> > > 
> > > Please understand that I have only a tenuous grasp of the "official
> > > process".  It seems to be a moving target.  ;-)
> > 
> > It isn't a moving target. Feel free to compare the old page version in
> > the Wiki with the current version. Either version only says that
> > explicit approval must be posted. It is not said who must send the
> > message.
> 
> It is a moving target when it gets changed at 9:30 in the morning to
> make this comparison correct :-)  Thanks for the clarification work,
> though.  And thanks for the clarification that the new wording should
> embody the same process as the old, just with clearer language.

I've not changed the "Approval" paragraph. But I've changed the wording in
the summary a bit -- pedantic people could still read between the lines
and complain. Obviously, without prior approval from the reviewer, the
packager cannot send the approval message on behalf of the approver. Only
more formal language could avoid ambiguities.


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