These emails are quite discouraging on packaging my software, which fits into this category of unpopular software. I don't think the intention is to discourage packagers, especially new packagers. I would hope not at least. Darren VanBuren ============== http://theoks.net/ Sent from my iPod On Mar 10, 2010, at 6:17, Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Thomas Janssen wrote: > >> You really dont care of the few users who use it and will let them go >> to another distribution who provides the software? >> And even dont care about the lost contributor? >> I thought we are on the "we need/want more contributors" way. >> >> I'm having a hard time to understand the motivation why you wrote >> that. > > I'll quote the sections: > > 20:43:30 <mjg59> The risk is when we have packages where 3 votes is a > substantial proportion of the users > 20:43:45 <skvidal> mjg59: which, imo, makes me wonder why we're > shipping > those pkgs at all. > 20:43:58 <mjg59> skvidal: It's not unreasonable > 20:44:06 <skvidal> mjg59: to wonder that? or to ship them? > 20:44:11 <mjg59> skvidal: Either > > > and then > 20:58:44 <notting> cwickert: ... i could be convinced that for the > far out > fringe packages that passing autoqa may be enough > 20:59:12 <skvidal> notting: I'd believe that far out fringe pkgs might > fall into the category of things to be removed :) > > > > > I don't think I could have made more qualified statements > > In the first one I said "it makes me wonder why" and in the second > one I > said "might fall into". > > We're really getting nitpicky here about things I wonder about. > > -sv > > _______________________________________________ > advisory-board mailing list > advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
