Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs

2017-01-09 Thread Geert Stappers
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 09:44:54PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On ? 07 ?? 2017 09:30 , Philip Hands > wrote: > > I'm tempted to respond to each of these people's first ITP with some > > suggestions, but you are much better placed to pass on advice to them, >

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs

2017-01-07 Thread Pirate Praveen
On ശനി 07 ജനുവരി 2017 09:30 വൈകു, Philip Hands wrote: > I've responded to a few of these ITPs and have found the responses I've > received suggest that you've chosen your recruits well, so it strikes me > as a shame that they are underselling themselves by submitting ITPs in > this state. I did

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs

2017-01-07 Thread Philip Hands
Hi Praveen, Having seen the unedifying thread on pkg-javascript I can see why you might be rather defensive on this subject, but this thread was intended as constructive criticism. The packages do actually need a long description to make it through the NEW queue, so this is really just about

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs

2017-01-07 Thread Adam Borowski
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 09:26:59PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On വെള്ളി 06 ജനുവരി 2017 02:46 വൈകു, Philip Hands wrote: > > The fact that they all seem to be trimming off the FIX_ME that npm2deb > > includes for them, and are thus also removing the explanation of what > > Node.js is, seems like

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs

2017-01-06 Thread Pirate Praveen
On വെള്ളി 06 ജനുവരി 2017 02:46 വൈകു, Philip Hands wrote: > Hi Praveen, > > I assume that all these ITPs are prompted by your crowd-funding effort. You assumption is wrong. It is better to ask than assume. If it were part of the crowd funding campaign, I'd have updated the -devel thread. The

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs (was: Re: Worthless node-* package descriptions in ITPs)

2017-01-06 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi Praveen, On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:16:37AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Hi Praveen, > > I assume that all these ITPs are prompted by your crowd-funding effort. > > Today we have #850399 which plumbs new depths in that it has had both > long and short descriptions trimmed from the body of

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs (was: Re: Worthless node-* package descriptions in ITPs)

2017-01-06 Thread Philip Hands
Hi Praveen, I assume that all these ITPs are prompted by your crowd-funding effort. Today we have #850399 which plumbs new depths in that it has had both long and short descriptions trimmed from the body of the message. Please would you take responsibility for your packaging team by instructing

Re: Worthless descriptions for almost all of the recent node-* ITPs (was: Re: Worthless node-* package descriptions in ITPs)

2017-01-05 Thread Philip Hands
Christian Seiler writes: > On 01/05/2017 02:06 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Quoting Riku Voipio (2017-01-05 12:53:16) >>> Vast majority of users would only install this via dependencies. It's >>> hardly a node-specific problem that debian package searches output >>> large