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

Re: Where to upload the Octavia image for Bullseye? Should I continue within the team?

Hi Thomas

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:57:23PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> At this point, publishing my work has been denied twice, so I believe it
> is very legitimate to ask the team what it think I should do.

Where was your work denied?  It was in review and you had ample
opportunity to fix the problems with it.  But instead of working with
the rest of the team, you did not respond a single time.  So right now I
only see that you abandoned your work and abondened work should be
cleaned up now and then to make sure the open work can be seen.

Lets reiterate the problems with your work:

- You close a merge request without any comment.[1]  And later open a
  new MR, without addressing the problems described in the first one.
  This is really bad style, borderline abusive.

- Problem: Your work fails the image tests.[2]
  Your solution: Ignoring it.

- Problem: The image is too large for the build infrastructure.
  Your solution: Ignoring it.

- Our task as team to you: Please look into the dependencies, they are
  not right and would most likely fix the size problem.  E.g. including
  dkms is not appropriate.
  Your solution: Ignoring it.

- My request to you: Please change the name, "octavia" is not
  descriptive enough.[3]
  Your solution: Ignoring it.

How does this look like "working together"?

[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/cloud-team/debian-cloud-images/-/merge_requests/147#note_113812
[2]: https://salsa.debian.org/cloud-team/debian-cloud-images/-/merge_requests/197#note_171479
[2]: https://salsa.debian.org/cloud-team/debian-cloud-images/-/merge_requests/147#note_113804

> Though remember: I was here first, and had all done within Casulana with
> Steve. If nothing had changed since, it'd be a better world for me...

Sadly no-one can stand still.  The team decided to use FAI, so your
single shell script variant was busted anyway.

> That's the way the team sees it, as we had completely different
> approach. My idea was to provide a build app within Debian itself, and
> use that for the lifetime of the release.

But do you not understand that you are not the team, but the team
consists of multiple people?  Your view and the team's consensus view
might not be the same.  Heck, there are a lot of things I don't agree
with, but I accept as team consensus.

> So yeah... the way the cloud image team is doing, it probably does make
> sense. But that's not how I wanted things to be done, I do not agree
> with that way. And since I'm probably the only one in the team feeling
> that way, I should just shut up, and ... do things separately my way.

Maybe.  But please note that my view is that no Debian resource, like
the wiki, should point to your replicated stuff as long as there is a
delegated team that does the work.  And also that you should not be
allowed to use your existing team access to casulana to handle your own
little kingdom and possibly interfere with the stuff the team does.

If you want to be part of a team, maybe you should try not to miss a
monthly meeting all the time?  We did even change the time on your
request, but you still did not show up.


I'm a soldier, not a diplomat.  I can only tell the truth.
		-- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.9

Reply to: