Op maandag 12 maart 2012 10:56:57 schreef Michael Scherer: > Le lundi 12 mars 2012 à 08:29 +0100, Maarten Vanraes a écrit : > > to get back on topic: perhaps it's not unreasonable to allow a timelimit > > exception, like for instance 3 or 4 days where "i forgot it was freeze or > > didn't make it in time AND it's not likely to mess everything up" kind of > > reason... > > That was already discussed when we discussed the release cycle. And > basically, that would just "let's reduce the freeze by 3/4 days in a > more inefficient way". You just move the bickering at the 3/4 days limit > ( "but it could have bene if I had submitted yesterday" ) instead of the > beggining of the freeze, and you take time to the people who are > submitting, since they get message, have to warn packager about "it > doesn't work" ( as it happened several time last freeze period ). [...] > So next time, maybe we should have a pure good faith based system, [...] > - everybody can do as he see fit
I'll take this suggestion as a cynic suggestions and ignore it for now [...] > Patch welcome, but frankly, I think there is a point where the duty of > being informed must be on the packagers. It is rather depressing to > realize that people do not read the announce you send ( and what is more > depressing is the number of those that don't once you start to dig out > ). > > If some people missed the announce, maybe we should ask them "where do > you read information about the project and where don't you read", so we > can identify the communication channel that should be used and those > that shouldn't, as i am not sure that hammering more is the solution. I do understand both your pov, and i do remember that discussion. IMHO: good strict policies are good, and exceptions are exceptions. but we should also try to prevent irritation if it's possible... we're short on contributors and I don't like to decrease motivation... I guess that makes me more lax than others.