Re: NMU's completely removed from kaffe in woody
Woah. Calm down, everyone!
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 04:28:03PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:06:55PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> > Well Ben, there are two reasons that I ignored the NMUs.
> > The first reason is that Kaffe revisions have been so long in coming that
> > the 1.0.6 source base bears little to no resembelence to the 1.0.5
> > source. Maintaining the patches that were done against 1.0.5 would be
> > difficult at best and I was more concerned with getting 1.0.6 out so
> > that people could use it.
> So superficial version numbers are more important than stability? I see.
Rhetoric. In isolation, a new upstream version sounds like a good
idea for woody; that's why we have unstable.
> Problem is that the patches I applied to this had a lot to do with the
> debian files (build failures because of faulty hard coded options). Which
> means, you should have incorporated them.
And this is a reasonable point. Ean, did you review the patches to
the build scripts?
> > So, in short 1.0.6 and the release after will both represent what are
> > effectively new pieces of software and tracking bugs let alone source
> > patches across those releases will be a waste of everyone's time.
> Hey, sounds _a lot_ like 10% of the rest of Debian packages! WOW. However,
> that is no excuse to ignore a) valid patches and b) changelogs which
> denote the history of the package as it pertains to Debian. Even if you
> don't like it, it is still there, and should remain. Removing it in favor
> of your personal image is not an excuse.
I have to agree with Ben. The changelog should represent history. If
a user with the current potato version upgrades, and finds the version
he came from not mentioned in the changelog, he's gonna be pretty confused.
> > The second reason I chose to cut a lot of NMU changelogs was that you
> > took it upon yourself to load them with vindictive, personal and
> > unprofessional statements. Why you need to say things like "I wish the
> > maintainer of this software would pay attention to his packages" in a
> > changelog is completely beyond me.
> Vidictive? Hell, I could have said a lot worse. I don't think making a
> request for some attention to your package was too much to ask.
But it was the wrong place to make that request, and it does reflect
badly on the project to have that kind of thing put in a place which,
we agree, is supposed to be kept as history.
> > I insured that a 1.0.5 release was available days after it was
> > released, as I did with 1.0.6, yet you continue to try and paint a
> > picture of negligence. Frankly, it seems clear to me that its personal
> > and I don't no why. Nor do I care.
> No, it's clear that removing patches and changelogs that I and others
> took the time to NMU, was personal.
It is not clear to me that either action was personal. Even if it
was, perhaps we'll get a better distribution by working first on the
assumption that it wasn't personal?
> > I spent all last week working in Transvirtual's offices, know Tim
> > Wilkinson personally and have an active business relationship with TVT.
> > I use Kaffe on a daily basis, package it for my own use and currently use
> > it on a number of handheld devices including the MIPS platform (for more
> > info see: http://www.pocketlinux.com).
No, it's not totally irrelevant. It may not excuse the fact that Ean
altered the changelog and possibly ignored some useful patches, but it
/does/ suggest that Ean may have the necessary experience, skills, and
connections to make a good kaffe package.
> > In short, I don't want to belittle your comments but I would ask you
> > to conduct yourself a little more professionally. At least try to bring
> > issues to me (or at least debian-java) before you waste devel's time
> > with issues that have little or no basis.
> Professionalism is what I did. I fixed the package, and made comments for
> the maintainer. A simple request to do this yourself is not vindictive nor
> unprofessional. Me having to do your job...now that makes you
> unprofessional. Irregardless of how cozy you are with upstream companies,
> you still need to fix bugs, not just killoff valid patches and work.
On the other hand, being rude in the changelog is unprofessional, IMO.
None of the above is my business, to be honest, but it's out on an
open list, so there you go.
Jules Bean | Any sufficiently advanced
firstname.lastname@example.org | technology is indistinguishable
email@example.com | from a perl script