On Jan 9, 2008 11:54 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2008/1/9, bardo <ilbardo@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > 2008/1/9, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > Right. Let me rephrase that a little. I don't think they need > > > explanations that would overflow that box, except for possible URL > > > runoff, but that's to be expected > > > > I think I'm with Karolina here, I remember I had the same impression a > > couple of times. It happened, if I want to speed up the upgrade and > > save some work to the maintainer, that I'd send a full PKGBUILD. If > > the update is non-trivial, that is. > > > > I have nothing against increasing the size of out-of-date comment box, > but in case of large text, PKGBUILDs, even tarballs - send this > directly to maintainer by email. Thanks Roman, that's exactly what I was trying to say, but you were more concise. Increasing the size isn't a problem, but a request to increase the size kinda makes me say "huh? wtf information are you trying to send?" Consider this: if you send a PKGBUILD via that box, how do you know you're not making someone's life harder? There might be wrapping issues, escaped chars (it is a web form) and all that fun stuff.
