Hi On 2/4/14, 5:27 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On 05/02/2014 00:34, Xyne wrote:
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
Technically, that is correct. However, I am sure there are many other TUs volunteering to be the sponsor after having read the application and the discussion (me, for example). So I don't think it is a problem. If it makes feel anyone better, please run
sed 's/David Reisner/Lukas Fleischer/g'
on your inbox (the misspelling of Dave's name comes in useful here!)
I'm not opposed to the application (it looks very promising to me). I just wanted to mention this issue because there is no point in having by-laws if we ignore them every time we assume that there is a tacit consensus to do so.
I strongly support that we follow our by-laws.
If Anatol agrees, Lukas will become his new sponsor and we will continue to discuss this new promising application.
I am fine with this. I still need to understand why Arch community is split into two groups 'developers' and 'trusted users'. They seems have similar responsibilities: maintaining packages and developing Arch toolset.
Although it's not strictly recommended (we lack of official recommendation?), this way works in all cases.
Ok, I've updated 14 packages where I found relative path usage. PTAL.