On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:19 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote: > On 6/5/20 9:04 AM, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public wrote: > > My main concern here is that it is not as simple as it just being > > Kyle's decision, it sets a precedent. I believe the naming is > > incorrect, and as such, should be fixed. I have tried initiating a > > conversation with the maintainer but with that didn't result in > > anything. > > It did result in something: he said "no". > > > I really don't want to step in anyone's toes, I have postponed this > > email as much as I could. Giving the lack of the reply from Kyle, one > > can only assume he does not care that much about the issue. I am fine > > with waiting one or two weeks before taking action to make sure he has > > time to reply, if there are no objections. > > "I don't agree with this, it fails to be memorable and using the > upstream shortname is confusing and does a disservice to users" sure > sounds like he objects to me.
Hi Eli, Sorry, I wasn't clear, my bad. No consensus came from my attempt at contacting him. And there was no discussion, it was one sided, so I feel like this issue is not resolved. There are still relevant points that I want to see addressed. Cheers, Filipe Laíns
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
