On 6/5/20 9:04 AM, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public wrote: > My main concern here is that it is not as simple as it just being > Kyle's decision, it sets a precedent. I believe the naming is > incorrect, and as such, should be fixed. I have tried initiating a > conversation with the maintainer but with that didn't result in > anything.
It did result in something: he said "no". > I really don't want to step in anyone's toes, I have postponed this > email as much as I could. Giving the lack of the reply from Kyle, one > can only assume he does not care that much about the issue. I am fine > with waiting one or two weeks before taking action to make sure he has > time to reply, if there are no objections. "I don't agree with this, it fails to be memorable and using the upstream shortname is confusing and does a disservice to users" sure sounds like he objects to me. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
