Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I, as well as others, have pointed out to Canonical on several > occasions that their patch policy is less than optimal. While some > personally agree with me, it's their policy and unfortunately it won't > change... however, maybe there's still hope, now that more people are > expressing that they'd like to receive patches and not just links to > patches.
Personally I will not be suprised if some procmail recipe doesn't end up running somewhere that effectively changes this policy for them. (Didn't you have one, tbm? :-) -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
