Hi Thorsten! El viernes, 4 de enero de 2019 08:44:04 -03 Thorsten Alteholz escribió: > Hi Lisandro, > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > >> po/ca/* and others are LGPL 2.1 or 3, without generic or later clause, > >> so "LGPL-2.1+ or LGPL-3+" is incorrect. > > > > Fair, but does it *really* deserves a reject? The license is still dfsg > > compliant and there is only one tiny little fix which can be fixed on the > > next upload. An accept + RC bug could also work here. > > what would be the difference on your side? You still have to do a second > upload. If you even tell us about that upload, odds for a short time in > NEW are high. Well, that's exactly what did not happen with this upload. Fair, it was a second upload and it still contained a bug (my bad), but I've uploaded it and replied to the REJECT mail. It took yet one more month to get to this reject. > In case of a bug we have to check whether you took care of the bug or just > lowered the severity. Unfortunately this has happened in the past, so to > reduce our workload, yes, this deserves a reject. That's a fair point. I do wonder if a technical solution could be found for this, at very least to reduce time in NEW queue (latte-dock already has almost 8 months in the queue in it's history). Thanks for the reply! -- En los momentos de crisis, la imaginación es mas importante que el conocimiento. Albert Einstein Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.