On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > My apologies, I didn't mean to be rude for not replyng - I only noticed this > email of yours just now. Sorry for missing it.
No probs. > I reckon we can always talk first, before engaging the punishment actions. :) My action was definitely not punishment, I'm sorry if it came across that way. >> How about the following compromise: >> >> File a bug (preferably with patch) on asciidoc about using the >> current time instead of the modification time of the input file. > > This wouldn't be a problem with responsive upstream. > I already tried to contact him but he is not answering to emails. > This was also confirmed by other people who tried to reach him. Are you talking about asciidoc here? If so the latest release was only last September so I would be skeptical that the author is MIA. If not, yeah that would not surprise me. > But wouldn't you agree that generated HTML file with few paragraphs of plain > text is unnecessary duplication which we can safely drop? Agreed. >> Ping the asciidoc uploader (formorer) about fixing #637006. > > Sure but I'm not too concerned about this. I've just done this now on IRC. > I think two issues I have are > > 1. Changing the meaning of document by updating a date which will reads > like if upstream updated something in the document on the date of > packaging. That would be an unreported bug in asciidoc, please file it. > 2. The amount of time one would spend for relatively simple > and straightforward packaging. > Perfectionism is close to my heart. > I'd like to ship the package as perfect as I can, and I'm not against > regeneration of this file (without altering date). > But how much time and effort one can afford in order to regenerate > single HTML file? > It may simply not worth the effort and I suspect that's might be a > reasonable consideration. > Moreover, if you're responsible for more than one package and other > packages have more serious issues to resolve, wouldn't you close your > eyes on this minor problem and try to address something more important > first? In the end it may be a prioritising issue. Personally I don't see it as a minor issue and if I lacked time I would probably just not ship the file. > As a last resort I can do that. > Would you prefer this solution to dropping the file as I did in my commit on > 7 of December? > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/onlyjob-guest/git2cl.git Either solution is fine by me. Please upload a new package to mentors so I can check and sponsor it. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6gge3zmb2jbl3xqlxpr_gybcr6ypfjuf_vrnkr64q6...@mail.gmail.com
