Re: Complaint about #debian operator
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Complaint about #debian operator"):
> As absurd as Andrew's comparison may seem, the diffs distributed from
> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ are pretty underwhelming as far as
> "contributing back to Debian" is concerned. [...]
I agree. That patch archive may be useful on occasion but it isn't a
substitute for proper filtering by the relevant Ubuntu developer.
Unfortunately there's not any official documentation to Ubuntu
developers to say what to do; we hope to write a relevant reference
Real Soon Now.
Personally when I'm working on Ubuntu packages I always consider
whether my changes ought to be in Debian and/or upstream, just as when
I'm working on a Debian package that I use personally I will consider
where else to send the changes I make (Debian BTS, package upstream,
or whatever). If I think Debian should want my patch (or even if they
won't want it are probably affected by a similar problem) I pass the
information to Debian in the appropriate way (usually, by filing a bug
or sending the diff to an existing bug).
Doing a good job of this is good for Debian of course but it's good
for Ubuntu too; when Ubuntu fails at this task the divergence between
Ubuntu and Debian grows and can quickly become too large for Ubuntu's
small team to cope with. Sharing patches is just part of sharing the
effort of maintaining the software.
Note that although this is my opinion from my experience as an Ubuntu
developer I'm not making an official policy pronouncement here; I'm
not in charge of these process decisions for Ubuntu.
I haven't yet had the experience of being on the Debian end of the
Debian-Ubuntu relationship in the context of one of my own packages,
but I when I have my Ubuntu hat on I try to treat Debian developers
the way that I would like to be treated myself.