On Thu, 25 May 2017 12:39:31 +0200 Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at> wrote: > * Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> [2017-05-25 11:53:47 CEST]: > > Rhonda, you are turning into circles and not answering my real > > questions here: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2017/05/msg00174.html > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2017/05/msg00112.html > > > > Please answer me. Thank you. > > I did. That you don't like the answer doesn't make it less of one. > > > > The problem described here is that if we have Django reverse > > dependencies in backports (I don't know if we have any), right now > > they have been tested/validated with Django 1.7.x (stable) or 1.8.x > > (jessie-backports) and switching to 1.10.x will likely break some > > of those packages that were relying on deprecated features that got > > removed in 1.9.x and 1.10.x. > > Pardon me, but how would they likely break some of those packages if > they are expected to work in stretch from where they got backported > from? I can't follow. Either they are working in stretch with 1.10, > or not - then they should get fixed in stretch to work with 1.10. The breakage isn't within backports - it is breakage upgrading from jessie to stretch. lava-server in stretch does work with 1.10 but without 1.8, I cannot successfully upgrade the version of lava-server in jessie to the version of lava-server in stretch. So updating django 1.10 in backports means that lava-server stops being upgradeable on a fresh jessie install. Existing users would be unaffected (as 1.8 has been run and the database changes have been made) but it will make lava-server in jessie a dead-end for anyone who has not already installed it from jessie-backports. > > > If django regularly changes API in such ways it should be > > > considered before backporting, not sticking at an extra version > > > that doesn't relate to what we have in testing. > > > > So, for you, the rules are more important than the service we > > provide to our users. For me, it's the opposite. > > No, it isn't. Don't twist my words to fit them your interpretation. > You denied to communicate this in a useful manner, now we have a mess, > and now you want us to fix it in the only way that fits your needs. > Please think before putting burden onto others. If you would have > contacted us right from the start we could have discussed it in a > civilised matter instead of you not taking responsibility for your > intentional inability to communicate with us. > > Yes, this sounds very personal, but you got it to this stage, don't > shift that to us. And it is extremely inconvenient to expect us to > just swallow it down like nothing happened, or like you wouldn't do > it again if it happened to be convenient for you. > > > > Software that depends on django in backports will be instable if > > > its upgraded to 1.10? If so, that would also mean they are > > > instable in stretch. Please fix that in a soon stable release. > > > > (*shrugh*) > > > > All the Django ecosystem makes effort to work well with LTS versions > > of Django. So providing an LTS version is beneficial and can avoid > > issues with some applications which have not been vetted against > > non-LTS versions. > > So you failed to provide an LTS version for stretch knowing that. > That's not our fault. Your lack to communicate in time instead of > having us stumble upon it is neither our fault. What you try now is > make it our fault to fix the mess you got us into instead of taking > responsibility for it and try to make it look like it's a personal > animosity against you. > > The animosity is not towards you as a person, it's towards your > intentional action. That action was highly unprofessional and > unacceptable, and it's also unacceptable to expect us to just swallow > it down as if nothing happened. > > > > And Raphael - if you would have contacted us beforehand instead > > > of intentionally do not this could all have been avoided and a > > > useful discussion could have been had. Don't turn this around > > > that the mess that we are in now is our fault because you did > > > choose not to communicate. > > > > I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it would have been different. I > > would have been in front of the same wall, you would not understand > > why I want to maintain the LTS version in jessie-backports and my > > use case would not be important enough for you to bend your > > policy. > > So you intentionally chose to break the rules. Are you aware that > you are digging your hole deeper with that? I appreciate your > honesty, which must not be easy, but not communicating when you know > you are breaking or twisting the rules is a definite no-go. Under no > circumstances can I accept that. It *would* have been different > because the mess that we are in now could have been avoided, *for our > users*. We can't turn back the time, but we could have come to an > agreement how to deal with this. Now you insist of having your way > as the only possible way. Sorry, I don't play that game. > > > I am not a 2-year old kid that will learn a lesson because you > > kick me with a stick on the fingers. I would have hoped that you > > could explain what is "messy" in this situation. > > If you can't see that then I'm very sorry, multiple different people > tried to explain it to you. > > Whatever, > Rhonda > -- > Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | > Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden > Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf > Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los | > -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpaudQ8OzOMz.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature