Re: python-django_1.8.18-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
* Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> [2017-05-25 14:51:28 CEST]:
>
>
> On May 25, 2017 8:05:50 AM EDT, Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at> wrote:
> >* Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> [2017-05-25 13:45:35 CEST]:
> >> If we care about this user code (and I think we should), then Django
> >> 1.10 in backports is a non-starter. If we don't care about user code
> >> then the python-django package isn't something I would ever
> >recommend.
> >
> > If the packagers cared about user code (and I think they should), then
> >we would have Django 1.8 in stretch?
> >
> Possibly true, but unless you have a time machine, irrelevant.
>
> I'm not a python-django maintainer so whatever mistakes they may have
> have made, it wasn't me who did it.
I'm also in no way interested who did what or not. I don't hold
grudges against people, unless they repeatedly rub me personally wrongly
or don't think there is a need to acknowledge the mistakes done. I
simply don't care for who did mistakes, they happen. The way how one
reacts to a mistake that's being pointed out is though something that
can de/escalate a situation quite quickly and easily.
I rejected the package in the light of that we always want security
fixes to go through unstable/testing to also assure that those releases
are fixed. Backports are called Backports for a reason. It's even
implied in the name. I wasn't aware of any reasoning behind it; and I
consider it highly unfair to expect us to just accept it without any
communication at all. That's not the standard way, and that's very well
known.
I (personally, not double-checked with Alexander) would be willing to
accept the package for this very moment in the light of the security
fixes. But that in no way doesn't mean that that can/will/should
continue like that. That doesn't close the discussion for me in any
sense, that exception is clearly to not delay the security fixes
further. The discussion is not affected in any way by that, because:
> We should be smarter for Buster, but for Jessie and Stretch, we're
> stuck. Please let's work together to resolve this and not fall back
> on "they screwed up, so it's not my problem".
No. This can't be a "should", this is definitely a must. I request a
clear plan how to avoid this to happen again. So far what I heard is
"this is where we are and this is the only way we see how to fix it"
without any hint of understanding of that that situation is highly
inconvenient, and that leads me to the impression that if we can't find
an agreement that this was clearly the wrong way to do it that we will
have this very discussion again once we get into buster freeze. It was
pointed out that the release schedules of django don't align well with
the Debian schedules - but that doesn't mean we should throw everything
over board and just do whatever we like. We should find a way to
approach that in a useful way; and that very much includes users of our
stable releases, and as convenient as it might be seen to have backports
being there as a gap closer, that's the wrong approach and doesn't help
users of our stable releases, at all.
So as long as I don't have the impression that the users of our stable
releases are taken into consideration I don't think we can move forward
with this in any way. And as long as there is the impression that we
can't communicate about such things then don't blame us for the lack of
communication that comes from your end. I can't be more clear than
that, it isn't our fault that it was chosen to *not* communicate that
beforehand, and I'm not willing to suck it up like that and ignore that
intentional lack of communication.
So long for now,
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 |
Reply to: