On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 19:24:02 -0700 Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> wrote: > This is how I see it as well. Putting aside the postinst warning, the I > can't see anything the TC could do beyond what we've already done, until > there's a patch on the table.
I'm glad to hear that the postinst warning is something that could be addressed regardless. But also, given that the postinst warning occurred after the previous TC ruling, I don't think the previous TC ruling alone gives sufficient confidence that a patch would not be ignored or rejected. I don't think anyone is expecting the TC to pre-approve a patch sight-unseen; rather, in the past the TC has used wordings like "merging reasonable contributions" to give some indication of what the TC expects.
