Hi, labeling it "minor issues" when the real reason is "sponsors needed" sounds wrong to me.
I'd say "minor issues" is right for minor issues. And "sponsors needed" is a legitimate, helpful additional information. It seems to me, that it's not uncommon to Debian to search for a sponsor of a package: https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors Ingo Am 08.04.19 um 21:51 schrieb Salvatore Bonaccorso: > Hi LTS contributors, > > Recently I noticed that for a no-dsa (either for no-dsa or the > stronger ignored) as explanation was started to be used e.g. "not used > by any sponsor". > > If LTS is meant as Debian project, then I would suggest not to start > to use those formulations, which I think are fine for ELTS, which is a > dedicated project not on Debian directly. Saying something is not DSA > worthy or is going to be ignored, because it's not used by a LTS > sponsor will give a signal to others that indeed, Debian LTS is not a > generic Debian project. > > Just stick to "Minor issue" in such cases if something is not DSA > worthy because the issue is minor, but do not make it depdendent on if > a paying LTS sponsor is using it or not. > > Thanks for reading, > > Regards, > Salvatore > -- Linuxhotel GmbH, Geschäftsführer Dipl.-Ing. Ingo Wichmann HRB 20463 Amtsgericht Essen, UStID DE 814 943 641 Antonienallee 1, 45279 Essen, Tel.: 0201 8536-600, http://www.linuxhotel.de
