Bug#1023056: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error
Control: tags 1023056 moreinfo
Control: tags 1023057 moreinfo
Axel Beckert:
Hi Niels,
Niels Thykier wrote:
I understand that you are unsatisfied with this proposal and that is
fair.
Thanks.
Though from my point of view, your email makes it hard for me to want to
engage with you to find a solution that would (ideally) satisfy your desires
I'm sorry, but at that point I have to say the very same about your
previous e-mail. IMHO this is not a one-sided thing. See below for an
explanation.
> [...]
Hi Axel,
First off, thanks for your reply. I very much appreciate you reaching
out here and putting your concerns forward as that enables to find
common ground and work on resolving the conflict. :)
Also, sorry for the late reply. My "post-work" mental bandwidth this
week has not enabled me to have adequate capacity for my follow up until
now.
As for your concerns, I have read them and I feel that we have two
conflicts that have been entangled into one. Therefore, I would like to
first attempt to untangle them and solve them separately. As I see it,
the current conflict is this bug (#1014537) but there is also the
initial conflict related to the changelog trimming.
As I understood you, your issues are - *for this bug specifically*:
1) You feel that I have made a final decision. Here you mention the
cloning of bug and the debian/{TODO,README.Debian} as two things
that made you feel the decision to be final.
2) While you agreed with Steve's feature request you did not feel my
proposed solution to Steve's request matched what you had expected
of me.
- For completeness, it is a bit unclear to me whether you also feel
this ties in to point about changes not being discussed on the
proper channel. It is possible for me to see narrative that given
you also felt the proposal was a final decision - but maybe I am
over reading you here.
3) Current frustration with the changelog trimming. I think a very
quick summary is that you feel changelog trimming proposal was not
discussed on the proper channels and also you strongly disagree with
the concept itself.
- Note I am deliberately keeping this short because I understand it
as an existing source of frustration caused by a different
conflict. Notably, this is the separate conflict I want to
untangle from the current one about unnamed packaging files.
However, since you explicitly brought the frustration caused by
that conflict, I felt the summary would be incomplete without
mentioning this part as well.
I hope you feel that is an accurate summary of the conflict related to
*this* bug about unnamed packaging files in multi-binary packages.
If you do *not* feel it was a good summary, then please stop reading
more of this email and tell me where I misunderstood or misread you.
The rest of my email is based on the above being a reasonably accurate
understand of the conflict. If I missed the mark on understanding
you, the rest of the email will probably just feel like an aggravating
straw man discussion to you and that is not what either of us want.
In a face to face discussion, I would normally wait for you to confirm
that my summary was good enough. However, I am going to risk optimizing
a bit by reducing the number of email round trips because I suspect the
conflict related to this bug will be easy to resolve.
=> Again, if you felt I misread you above, please stop here and tell
me where I was wrong.
I would like to start by addressing the part where you felt I made a
final decision. My previous email was *not* intended to be a final
decision. It was my request for feedback on my proposed solution.
Diving a bit deeper in what I intended with the actions you mentioned as
making it feel like a final decision:
* The cloned bug was me noting gregor suggesting a lintian tag for this
and me thinking "let me just do it immediately, so I do not forget".
Admittedly, the bugs should probably have been tagged moreinfo as
well because the actual requested change had not (and is still not)
fleshed out yet. I have done this now.
* My mention of debian/{TODO,README.Debian} was related to the part
where I was leaving these files as exceptions to Steve's request. If
Steve (or someone else) wanted this particular exception "undone", I
wanted that person to drive the discussion to show there was
consensus for that change.
I hope the above clarified my actions and made it clear that I never
intended this to be a "final decision".
As for my proposal not being what you had expected. My intention with
the email was to discuss my proposed solution. We all have different
priorities and I made my proposal in a way I felt were aligned with the
original proposal while also helping me with some of my priorities.
However, I was aware that it was a potential controversial point, so I
wanted to hear what other people said to my proposal.
With you reading my email as final decision, it probably did not feel
like I was opening the floor for discussion. However, that was my
intention even though that sentiment failed to come across.
In your previous email, I feel you showed strong disagreement to my
proposal and in this case I am happy to compromise on some of my
priorities and go for an alternative solution.
On a related note, I have updated my MR to match this compromise,
where single binary packages are no longer affected by this change (at
least as far as my testing shows - feel free to take it for spin and see
if you can find any bugs related to that).
At this point, I would like to stop here to ask whether you feel the
conflict related to this bug has been resolved adequately?
I know we have not touched upon the changelog trimming and that
definitely need a follow up. If you agree that we have bridged the gap
in this particular conflict, I hope you would be happy with me moving
our discussion on the trimming of changelog conflict to #1014537 - for
me this about keep relevant discussion in the bug/feature request that
it relates to.
Best regards,
~Niels
Reply to: