It was accepted first [1], and then rejected for reasons that doesn't
apply
fully to AppArmor, and i doesn't hid anything, so stop playing
detective.
Like Scimmia said "There are better mediums to have this discussion."
and
for such discussions we have this mailing list, doesn't we?
[1]
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/linux&id=c75a915313f72924fa0a3ed45356f9e0ea488f3b
On 2018-09-09 18:24, Maksim Fomin via arch-general wrote:
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, 9 September 2018 17:34, Gus <qty@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You have been rejected by heftig and tpowa. It is unclear why and what
> you are asking here.
It was accepted first and then rejected by heftig.
Really? Just rejected by heftig? The issue was rejected 4 times, first
by heftig than 3 times by Scimmia:
2018-09-03
"A Project Manager has denied the request pending for the following
task: FS#59733 - [linux] enable AppArmor & SELinux User who did this -
Doug Newgard (Scimmia) Reason for denial:
2018-09-05
"FS#59733 - [linux] enable AppArmor & SELinux User who did this - Doug
Newgard (Scimmia) Reason for denial: No new information"
"FS#59733 - [linux] enable AppArmor & SELinux User who did this - Doug
Newgard (Scimmia) Reason for denial: I'm not going to reopen a ticket
for people to make the same argument over and over"
"Reason for denial: Stop having a catfight with the bugwranglers
because you think, somehow, that people will be less likely to open
duplicate bugs just because we provide dialog. There are better
mediums to have this discussion."
So far, this issue was closed by heftig and then 3 times by bug
wrangler. This fact was hidden in the first post to this thread.
