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.

Reply via email to