Re: "Automatic" backports
On 09/29/2011 10:11 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
I know, and it's normal, Mike has done a tremendous work for Debian
(even bigger than tremendous compared to me), but I just wanted to say
what I think about automated backport without being too direct and
Quoting Cyril LAVIER (firstname.lastname@example.org):
Sadly for you, I'm not of one those people.
Sadly for you, I tend to have confidence in Mike's judgement to decide
what packages can deserve such treatment.
For Security updates, I completely understand this is a problem, but
when somebody performs a backport, he has to maintain the backport
and work with the maintainers.
Mike is the maintainer of the package he intends to backport. At
least, I guess so.
What more can I say ? You are right and I'm wrong.
I know, but I thought it would be easier to follow a mailing list when
receiving mails, but everyone is different.
PS: Please Cc me, I'm not subscribed.
By the way, I CC'ed you, but you can subscribe to this mailing list,
you will have a better view on what exactly is the backport process.
I'm not sure that Mike Hommey needs teaching about how to behave on
mailing list and how backports are working.
To be clear, I never wanted to be offensive against Mike (and everyone
else in this mailing list), I just wanted to clearly explain my opinion
on what I saw and what I learn on the past months of following this
mailing list (via gmane and via email), and on the past years on being
active in the Debian/Ubuntu packaging.
I know I still have a long way to go to fully understand the backport
process and the backport way of thinking (like everytime one of the
experienced maintainers and backporters replied to tell me I'm wrong).
Maybe next time a more light and direct answer will be better than
trying to be correct. I didn't wanted to act like an ass when writing
"Sadly....", I just wanted to avoid saying "no I don't totally agree
That's all, I hope I was clear in this mail.
Cyril "Davromaniak" Lavier