Heyya, Michael, On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:42:35PM +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > > I do see that some innovative ideas cause breakage. And sometimes breaking > things may result in progress. All I was saying is that innovation and breaking > things are not the same. Granted. I 100% agree. However, innovative solutions which *don't* break things are usually welcome in unstable :) > In an ideal world, people would come up with innovative > ideas, think them through, and then come up with a plan that breaks as little as > possible. (No, we don't live in an ideal world.) I do agree - however, allowing your work / plan to be fleshed out "in the real world" and allowing for peer-review (in a low-cost way, not in a rebuild-world with these patches and swap GNOME out way) is something that helps foster innovation / collaboration on real-world problems. (Oh, I see what you did there. Well, X broke, perhaps we can do Y and Z to get around that?) > I tend to disagree, but I don't have any hard facts to back up my claim. Meh, neither do I :) > May I dare to say you are lacking innovation here? Look at what Mika did in his Perhaps so! I do love better solutions :) > kantan project (http://grml.org/kantan/). No, he did not stick his head in the > sand when working towards testing grml. But actually all you need is a virtual > machine. Or maybe not even that: just use > > http://collab-maint.alioth.debian.org/debtree/ > > which won't even require a single package build. Just look at (or automatically > analyze) the output. While this is all great stuff (thanks, really, I didn't know about kantan) I don't think it's exactly what I need in this particular case I'd really like to be able to publish it for review, and even allow others to work with me (just dput it into PPAFOO if you're interested in helping, etc) on general package work. > I fully agree with this point, but at the same time I'd hope that people go the > might-break-things route only once they thought about it. Breaking things out of > plain laziness is not acceptable. Sure. Keeping it to PPAs and keeping unstable as-is is likely one way to contain people going out of control (they'd still need to transition the real way in unstable) > When (potentially) breaking things is the only way to achieve progress in a > particular sub-project then this shall be ok. (Obviously a comment I should be > making in other threads and likely there will be people who disagree.) But > *please* don't push for a routine of breaking things as a general means towards > progress. As I tried to show for your example above: there may be other > solutions to a problem, and these may even be more efficient. This isn't > anyone's personal sand-pit, so please be considerate of both users of fellow > DDs by putting in a reasonable amount of effort to think about safer solutions. I do agree, but I also think that allowing DDs to break things in a small, contained section (e.g. PPAMAIN), we can help avoid bigger breakage by testing out the plan in the real world, with real-world conditions (etc) > > Best, > Michael Thanks, Michael! Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature