On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 19:19 +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > If you take a closer look at the sample you provided you should have > noticed the submitted date of that review request is 2012-07-01 and > the > last comment in which he finally gave up and moved to do other > things > wason 2014-01-26 roughly 18 months later so claiming that he only > abandoned his review request due to having to unbundle the submitted > component might not be the ( sole ) underlying cause for doing so ( > If > you are thinking about arguing the case he had to depend on another > component then I'll point out the time 2009-11-27 when the review > request for that depended component was submitted ) . The second-to-last comment from the submitter is a list of *six* libraries that would have had to be unbundled (each going through its own review request) before the package could have been approved. In a world where bundling was allowed, the package would likely have been approved on initial review; the only significant issues found in review were bundling-related. There are a couple of trivial issues noted in #c7, but those would have been literally 10-second fixes. (FWIW if unbundling wasn't required, even if the original submitter hadn't given up, I would've been happy to package tt-rss. The pile of unbundling required is the sole reason I won't do it now.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
