On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 08:17 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > 2010/9/6 Ng Oon-Ee <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 10:11 -0500, Brad Fanella wrote: > >> 2010/9/6 Sven-Hendrik Haase <[email protected]> > >> > >> > On 06.09.2010 08:42, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > >> > > On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 21:03 -0400, Loui Chang wrote: > >> > >> On Sun 05 Sep 2010 22:49 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > >> > >>> Arch TUs are generally considered to be the ultimate nightmare > >> of any > >> > >>> upstream maintainer. We come in the night, nagging with patches > >> until > >> > >>> all known upstream problems are fixed. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Do not stop trying to get your patches into upstream. > >> > >> Hell yeah! > >> > >> > >> > > Sven-Hendrik's post should be plastered on the wall of every TU > >> (and > >> > > Arch user, actually) =) > >> > > > >> > > Any objections to putting the quote in its entirety on the wiki > >> for TUs? > >> > > > >> > > > >> > None at all. :) > >> > > >> > >> I was actually planning on making that my forum signature! :-P > >> However, that > >> is crucial information and needs to be included in the wiki. > > > > Done. May need polishing =) > > > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU.27s_mission_statement > > Sorry, but however awesome Sven is, that kind of content does not fit > in that page. I have slightly changed the wording of the introductory > paragraph for the "desired effect"; see wiki diff.
Understood =). The comment is still awesome though. Would it be acceptable for 'communicating with and sending patches upstream as needed' to contain a link to the ML post?
