"submission rules page" proposal number 2
Fri Jan 6 01:26:00 GMT 2006
Eric Blake wrote:
> You may want to move step 4 prior to step 1, since you mention submitting
> the proposed setup.hint online.
Mhhh... that's a tough issue: for sure step 1 has a forward reference to
step 4 regarding setup.hint (which is bad), but step 1 contains the most
important info, and putting it at step 2 after a longish text about the
Test-ness of packages seems to remove step 1 quite a bit of authority.
Uhm. Any other comment or suggestion how to solve the issue?
> Also, in the email, it is helpful if
> you explicitly state which older versions to keep or delete from the
Can "old" version be multiple or just a single one? (I'm assuming the
latter, in version 2 I'm preparing right now)
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Yep. We increased the votes when we allowed packages that were already
> in other distributions to slide in.
Whoops, didn't remember that.
> I've been meaning to mention this. The disk space limitations on the new
> sourceware are pretty much nonexistent now - at least for a year or so.
> I don't think there's any harm in keeping old versions around now unless
> people think this is a bad idea in general.
Should I remove that part, then?
> should be sent as soon as possible after
> the uploaded message has been sent to cygwin-apps.
Does the old-times rule "give a few hours to allow the package spread to
the mirrors" hold no more, then?
Well, let's see how this version 2 fares:
More information about the Cygwin-apps