Hi,
I believe Det's comment ("Inactive maintainers") was in response to my
comment asking why the package is flagged.
I also kinda think Det is right, since an active maintainer should unflag
the package if it was wrongly flagged.
Maybe Det should have been more verbose, and should have said
Hi Ralf,
I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment (and Det's answer to my
comment) but, if you are, notice that I was asking why the package yaourt
is flagged out of date given that, like you just said, it *is* in fact
up-to-date.
If you were referring to a different "group" of commenters
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:57:19 +, William Di Luigi wrote:
>I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment (and Det's answer to my
>comment) but, if you are, notice that I was asking why the package
>yaourt is flagged out of date given that, like you just said, it *is*
>in fact up-to-date.
>
>If
Reading Det's comments again, it's possible that I misunderstood those
comments. However, maybe Skunnyk is sick of unflagging the package two
times a day. I doubt that Skunnyk is "inactive", my guess is, that it
makes no sense to unflag the package again and again.
Yeah, I get that. But I don't think Skunnyk is unflagging every day, that's
why I asked why it's been flagged for a week straight (9 days, as of
today). I would not have asked that at all, had the flag been there for,
like, 1 or 2 days :)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:12 PM Ralf Mardorf
Hi,
is there a way to stop the misuse of AUR comments?
It's ok if somebody is mistaken, this could happen, but if a group
continues to insist to spread something wrong, that was explained to be
wrong, it becomes a misuse of the comments.
I wish to read informative comments and don't want to
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 0 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 1 fully signed off package
* 13 packages missing signoffs
* 4 packages older than 14 days
