On Monday, July 05, 2010 02:15:38 pm Sandro Tosi wrote: > Hi Scott and others. > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 19:45, Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> wrote: > > Things are quite different now than they were 9 months ago when I got > > involved. They are significantly different now than when this bug was > > filed. > > > > Other than the question of when to make the initial upload of a new > > version of the Python interpreter to Unstable, most of the issues at the > > core of this request have to do with maintenance of the core Python > > system in Debian and Python policy. These are from python-defaults and > > python3-defaults. Both of these packages are now maintained by three > > DDs in a public VCS. > > > > I agree with the idea that maintenance of the interpreter packages should > > be broadened, but I think that the defaults packages which control > > default/supported versions and provide the Debian Python policy are the > > most important. > > Indeed that changes a lot, and for the best, but we're not done yet, IMO. Agreed. As I said, I think maintenance of the interpreter packages should be broadened. I don't see a problem with the level of maintenance they are getting right now, but for packages of this significance, having a single maintainer is not the best. > > I believe it is fair to state that more has been done to improve the > > technical state of Python in Debian in the last 9 months than in the > > previous 4 years. > > But it is also fair to state that this progress was possible mainly > thanks to you, Piotr, and then to the debian-python community, and > AFAICS in very minimal part (none?) from Matthias. Why is he still in > a control position? With respect to the defaults packages I don't think that is the case. I agree maintainership of the interpreter packages should be broadened so that no one person can block things. > > We are having a good discussion in the Debian Python community around > > what the Debian System for Python 3 will look like. No one is imposing > > anything (look at the recent archives of debian-python for the > > discussion). > > Sure, and doko took part in exactly zero discussions; is he sending > his lieutenants in exploration and then have them report back to him > and so decide what to do? </sarcasm> Why is he still in a control > position? I'm not his lieutenant. Who is in Uploaders versus Maintainers doesn't make a lot of difference. If you'd be happier if we rearranged the names, I doubt it would be a problem. > > The history of Python in Debian is what it is, but I don't think that > > restructuring maintainership would solve any problems that we are > > actually having right now. > > > > It seems to me that this request has evolved significantly. Initially it > > was about broadening maintainership. Now that this is happening, it > > seems to be just about getting doko fired. > > Whatever the two, but I think that broadening the maintainership and > keeps doko in, required in him to change his behavior; if that won't > change, I don't know what other solutions there can be. I would have expected you to be interested in communication with the set of maintainers. I don't think you should really care among us which is the most communicative as long as the overall integration with the broader Debian Python community is good. > > I find that doko is perfectly willing to have > > > > reasonable discussions with people who are trying to work with him. I > > don't find it a bit surprising that he doesn't place a priority on > > dealing with people who are not. > > Honestly? I think he is fine to have conversation with people that > will "obey" to most of his will, and don't critics too much. When > something differentiate from his thought he simply shut up, and > continue on his way without listening. That Is The Problem. For > example, and for the hundredth time, why he didn't write A SINGLE WORD > here? Don't assume that because I chose not to air disagreements in public, they don't happen. You'd have to ask him why he hasn't commented here, I don't know. I'm only commenting on this now because I was asked too. I'd rather focus my limited time for Debian work on working on Python. > > He's not always as responsive as I would like, but I'm > > > > not always as responsive as others would like either. None of us has > > unlimited time. > > > > As far as the Ubuntu versus Debian question, if you look at the python2.6 > > history you will see that back in April doko switched back to having > > Debian uploads lead Ubuntu uploads and since then has uploaded python2.6 > > to Debian 9 times. > > > > Currently the package is maintained in Debian and then merged with > > minor changes in Ubuntu. This is another aspect of the original > > complaint that is, in my opinion, no longer valid (personally, I don't > > understand how one can simultaneously exult Debian as being more careful > > and having higher quality standards than Ubuntu and complain that > > everything that's in Ubuntu should also be in Debian at the same time, > > but regardless, it's OBE). > > sure, but is he really want to work first in Debian or instead > something like "let's fake that: I need to upload python2.6 to Ubuntu > so I let other pretend I care for Debian, I upload there first and > then I sync in Ubuntu where I really need the package". Also do you > call the last rushed uploads "up to the Debian quality"? Several times > his package failed *even* to install... The packages are what they are. I'll leave it to others to judge. My point was that he is now uploading to Debian first. I can't predict what will happen in the future, but for the moment, it seems one of the main original complaints is resolved. I'm not aware of any current issues that changing maintainers will fix. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.