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

Re: New tracker bugs for the use of ExcludeArchs in packages

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Nobody complained so loudly before -- why suddenly? All *I* requested is
to link this bug to the tracker bug -- that takes only 5 seconds per
bug. This whole discussion took much more time already.

"All Fesco does with this rule" would probably be more suitable -- so
okay, I you guys don't like that "MUST" rule then we can try to revisit
it and modify it. See the other mail to Hans I wrote some minutes ago
for details.

Speaking only for myself:

The problem is not the tracker bug it is your clarification / reply to my initial question if this should be done in all cases. In practice reviewers have been handling it as suggested in your reply to my second mail this thread. It is not necessary to write down every exception in the guidelines / procedures, it is necessary to allow for interpretation room, your reply took the room (which I thought was there for interpretation) away.



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