[arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date
Is it possible to make the box for comment, in the flag package out-of-date, a little bit bigger? As it is now, it is hard to see what you write, if you want to explain your findings.
On Jan 9, 2008 3:50 AM, Karolina Lindqvist <karolina.lindqvist@kramnet.se> wrote:
Is it possible to make the box for comment, in the flag package out-of-date, a little bit bigger? As it is now, it is hard to see what you write, if you want to explain your findings.
Erm, I don't think you should really need to "explain" why something is out of date. If there are "findings" and "explanations" involved, that sounds like a bug report to me But either way, it's always "possible" to do just about anything with computers. File a feature request in the bug tracker and we can look into it. I'm *positive* the guy that makes these changes does not read this ML at all.
On Jan 9, 2008 11:37 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 3:50 AM, Karolina Lindqvist
<karolina.lindqvist@kramnet.se> wrote:
Is it possible to make the box for comment, in the flag package out-of-date, a little bit bigger? As it is now, it is hard to see what you write, if you want to explain your findings.
Erm, I don't think you should really need to "explain" why something is out of date. If there are "findings" and "explanations" involved, that sounds like a bug report to me
Eh, not always - I've gotten a few out of date reports of the form "website moved to here: <url>, new sources available here <url>"
On Jan 9, 2008 10:52 AM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 11:37 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 9, 2008 3:50 AM, Karolina Lindqvist
<karolina.lindqvist@kramnet.se> wrote:
Is it possible to make the box for comment, in the flag package out-of-date, a little bit bigger? As it is now, it is hard to see what you write, if you want to explain your findings.
Erm, I don't think you should really need to "explain" why something is out of date. If there are "findings" and "explanations" involved, that sounds like a bug report to me
Eh, not always - I've gotten a few out of date reports of the form "website moved to here: <url>, new sources available here <url>"
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
2008/1/9, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
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. Corrado
2008/1/9, bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com>:
2008/1/9, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
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. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Jan 9, 2008 11:54 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/1/9, bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com>:
2008/1/9, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
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.
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
bardo
-
Karolina Lindqvist
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Travis Willard