[arch-general] Comment box in flag package Out-of-date

[Aaron Griffin]

On Jan 9, 2008 11:54 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/1/9, bardo <ilbardo at gmail.com>:
>
> > 2008/1/9, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at 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 I have nothing against increasing the size of out-of-date comment box,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.