Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:26:12AM +0000, Ben Finney wrote: > > So it's already the case that they have a certain number of places > > to look, *including* the Debian BTS if the work is packaged for > > Debian. I don't see that this proposal changes that. > > That's why the proposal is bad. It doesn't improve that, and it > requires more work from the maintainer. Lose/lose situation.
As I understand it, the proposal is to put *new* information (that Debian source diverges, and exactly why) into an existing location that is already a place we expect upstream to know about (the Debian BTS) and that all Debian package maintainers are already expected to know how to use. That seems like an improvement on putting that information in a *new* place, that historically is not a place where all Debian package maintainers can be expected to use, and expecting that upstream will look there. The former builds on the existing conventions (use of the Debian BTS is mandatory for Debian package maintainers, upstreams already at least know the BTS contains useful information), the latter attempts to set up a separate system that hasn't historically been mandatory at all. -- \ "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily | `\ escaped the chronicler's mind." -- Douglas Adams | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
