[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Motivation to work on Blends

Hi Andreas,

On Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2014, Andreas Tille wrote:
> two recent threads on this list made me wonder whether my motivation
> to work on Blends was well described.

I think it would be helpful to distinguish two things: the work on Blends and 
the work on blends-dev.

Personally, I am interested in Debian Blends as a concept and sometime in 
practicals aspects of these Blends or within the Debian contexts. I have not 
much interest in blends-dev OTOH, because *I* dont't see much value in it, 
sorry. As I see it, it generates meta-packages, which is nice and useful, but 
which could be done with some very simple script too. All the rest I could get 
from blends-dev I am not much interested in, but when I notice stuff like 
#766289 or even work on #726492 I get told to read lots of documentation and 
fix some code. But all *I* want are Debian Edu metapackages. Sorry.

(I speak for myself here, not for Debian Edu. I have no idea if blends-dev is 
useful for other stuff for Debian Edu. Maybe/probably because I'm a bit 
ignorant here / dont have everything in mind all the time ;)

> [...]  I have copied this information to each mailing list and asked
> the individual Blend teams to enhance their own entry page since they
> only show what I personally to my poor understanding consider relevant
> but it does not reflect the interests of each Blend.  While I realsised
> that nobody changed anything on these pages I'm not sure what option
> might be true:
>  a) I did everything perfectly OK for each Blend (I have severe doubt
>     that this might be true)
>  b) Blends team members have no time / interest on these pages
>  c) Blends team members are afraid of / don't know how to change
>     their own entry page.
>  d) ?
> I'm afraid it is a mix of b) and c) and I would like to kindly invite
> everybody who is interested to take part here.

Andreas, first, b.) mixes two very different things. The same for c.)

So thats a problem in your analysis. 

And then I also think it's a mixture of all these four reasons in b.) + c.), 
but how can you think, that someone has no time or interest and then still 
continue to "kindly invite them"? That's almost absurd.

-> stop inviting people, rather maybe try to address the issues: if they have 
no time, make them save time. If they have no interest, make them have 

Or such. I don't know. Just what you wrote seemed unlogical ;-)

> What I do not like is if people blame the tools to be not fit for their
> work only because they fail to maintain their data (#726492).

I never blamed blends-dev for some of the Edu tasks containing software not 
available in Debian. I also don't care much about this, as the Debian Edu 
metapackages *work* as they should (thanks to features in blends-dev!). True, 
they are not as *clean* as they could be, and I think that's unfortunate and 
should be fixed, but I consider #726492 minor and would rather like to 
concentrate on releasing Jessie now! - and when that's done, I also consider 
#311188 more important. And then probably something else.

Still, I'd be happy if #726492 could get fixed, that's *why* *I* *spent* 
*several* *hours* on it.

And obviously the reason for #726492 is Debian Edu not updating the tasks 
files. But as said, I don't consider this as anything but a minor issue, yet I 
fail to consider it even as a minor _problem_.

(And I do a lot of QA in Debian - so I do care about QA. Maybe dealing so much 
with way worse issues made me more ignorant about cosmectic stuff like this.)

> I'm simply astonished if people starting to code something else since
> they prefer Perl over Python

You're surprised that people rewrite foo because of bar??? Really??? How long 
have you been involved in free software? That happens all the time.

Because often rewriting something from scratch so that it almost works is way 
easier and faster than changing existing projects.

Yet this doesn't make the existing projects useless or unneeded or anything.

Also this ain't nothing new: there has always been more than one tool to 
create Debian Blends, and there always will be :) Which is great!


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: