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:


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

Reply via email to