Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)

[paddy <paddy@panici.net>]

On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:44:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> paddy <paddy@panici.net> writes:
> 
> > But, I can see the case, as I describe before, where achieving the function
> > of a package places great pressure on the time to package, so much so that
> > if an interim, first cut package can achieve this most effectively 
> > (ie: quickest) by shipping upstream 'important fixes/features' mixed with
> > 'other "new functionality", which is not actually necessary' then that can
> > be a win too.  But I could agree: only with the proper follow-up.
> 
> No, no, no.
> 
> If nobody is around to devote that time to the package, then it should
> not be released.  It is not ok to release it, and then say, "I don't
> have the time to do it right!" and then do it wrong.
> 
> Thomas

Agreed.  If anyone is saying 'do a half-assed job', I'm right there with
you: No, no no.

Nevertheless, I still believe in what I _have_ said.

Perhaps the problem is with the word 'release'.  Elsewhere Andi has said
something like 'release area and staging area'.  I certainly don't mean
release in this sense - and I can see how I could be causing confusion.
I simply mean 'make publicly available'.  I mean to imply nothing about
branding or what have you, except that I believe its best to label such
a thing as what it is: and certainly not to confuse it with other things
that is clearly not.

I think:

It would appear that we both believe in 'doing the right thing'.
There are likely some differences between us as to what that may be,
but probably not as much as our words would suggest.  And a good part
of that is down to my poor choices of words.  I hope we can get past 
those poor choices.

Once more, in more detail, then:

I'm not talking about the case where sufficient resources are not available
to be applied.  I'm talking about the case where, in the application of
sufficient resources in a timely fashion, the best outcome is an initial
product that does not consume as much resource to produce as later products
in the same process, not because of any desire to not expend resources, 
but because quicker is better, and even nine women will not bear a child
to term in one month. Sometimes less is more. 

Perhaps this case never occurs, in which case perhaps I owe you apology 
for wasting you time, but so far you don't seem to be saying that: I think
more likely we're stuck on a form of words.

Regards,


Paddy

-- 
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall