Re: [arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date
On Jan 9, 2008 11:54 AM, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/1/9, bardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 2008/1/9, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Right. Let me rephrase that a little. I don't think they need > > > explanations that would overflow that box, except for possible URL > > > runoff, but that's to be expected > > > > I think I'm with Karolina here, I remember I had the same impression a > > couple of times. It happened, if I want to speed up the upgrade and > > save some work to the maintainer, that I'd send a full PKGBUILD. If > > the update is non-trivial, that is. > > > > I have nothing against increasing the size of out-of-date comment box, > but in case of large text, PKGBUILDs, even tarballs - send this > directly to maintainer by email. Thanks Roman, that's exactly what I was trying to say, but you were more concise. Increasing the size isn't a problem, but a request to increase the size kinda makes me say "huh? wtf information are you trying to send?" Consider this: if you send a PKGBUILD via that box, how do you know you're not making someone's life harder? There might be wrapping issues, escaped chars (it is a web form) and all that fun stuff.
Re: [arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date
2008/1/9, bardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/1/9, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Right. Let me rephrase that a little. I don't think they need > > explanations that would overflow that box, except for possible URL > > runoff, but that's to be expected > > I think I'm with Karolina here, I remember I had the same impression a > couple of times. It happened, if I want to speed up the upgrade and > save some work to the maintainer, that I'd send a full PKGBUILD. If > the update is non-trivial, that is. > I have nothing against increasing the size of out-of-date comment box, but in case of large text, PKGBUILDs, even tarballs - send this directly to maintainer by email. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Re: [arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date
2008/1/9, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Right. Let me rephrase that a little. I don't think they need > explanations that would overflow that box, except for possible URL > runoff, but that's to be expected I think I'm with Karolina here, I remember I had the same impression a couple of times. It happened, if I want to speed up the upgrade and save some work to the maintainer, that I'd send a full PKGBUILD. If the update is non-trivial, that is. Corrado
Re: [arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date
On Jan 9, 2008 10:52 AM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 11:37 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2008 3:50 AM, Karolina Lindqvist > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is it possible to make the box for comment, in the flag package > > > out-of-date, a > > > little bit bigger? As it is now, it is hard to see what you write, if you > > > want to explain your findings. > > > > Erm, I don't think you should really need to "explain" why something > > is out of date. If there are "findings" and "explanations" involved, > > that sounds like a bug report to me > > Eh, not always - I've gotten a few out of date reports of the form > "website moved to here: , new sources available here " Right. Let me rephrase that a little. I don't think they need explanations that would overflow that box, except for possible URL runoff, but that's to be expected
Re: [arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date
On Jan 9, 2008 11:37 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 9, 2008 3:50 AM, Karolina Lindqvist > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it possible to make the box for comment, in the flag package > > out-of-date, a > > little bit bigger? As it is now, it is hard to see what you write, if you > > want to explain your findings. > > Erm, I don't think you should really need to "explain" why something > is out of date. If there are "findings" and "explanations" involved, > that sounds like a bug report to me Eh, not always - I've gotten a few out of date reports of the form "website moved to here: , new sources available here "
Re: [arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date
On Jan 9, 2008 3:50 AM, Karolina Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is it possible to make the box for comment, in the flag package out-of-date, a > little bit bigger? As it is now, it is hard to see what you write, if you > want to explain your findings. Erm, I don't think you should really need to "explain" why something is out of date. If there are "findings" and "explanations" involved, that sounds like a bug report to me But either way, it's always "possible" to do just about anything with computers. File a feature request in the bug tracker and we can look into it. I'm *positive* the guy that makes these changes does not read this ML at all.
[arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date
Is it possible to make the box for comment, in the flag package out-of-date, a little bit bigger? As it is now, it is hard to see what you write, if you want to explain your findings.
