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

Re: #682010 re celt and mumble referred to the TC

Didn't include the tech-ctte list as well as the bug report and the 
maintainer.  [I'll get this right eventually...]

On Thursday, July 19, 2012 05:38:47, Ron wrote:
> >  - This is a serious problem for mumble at least and is arguably RC.
> Yes, mumble has a serious problem, that is arguably RC.
> In fact it has several of them aside from this corner that people
> have painted themselves into with it ...

>    FWIW, even the original poster of the bug in question later agreed
>    in calmer discussion on IRC that the Right Thing for mumble to do
>    is to release 1.3 and accelerate the migration, and that is only
>    being delayed now by the first point above.

I don't disagree, but I'm wondering how the migration could be (or could have 
been) accelerated.

> If I'd known that Thorvald was not going to be here to manage this
> transition for Wheezy, I'd have never agreed to shipping libcelt in
> the Squeeze release either, and would have instead kept it in sid
> only.  If I'd known that his plan to have all other distros ship
> the 0.7.1 release as a temporary interoperability snapshot would
> fail as dismally as it did (no other distro shipped this version
> except debian derivatives who took it from us), I'd have similarly
> vetoed the idea of shipping this as a public library in the last
> stable release too.

This was definitely not clear; if it had been I wouldn't have considered re-
enabling it as a potential solution.

> Mumble already ships this as an embedded private library on every
> system other than direct Debian derivatives.

Just for clarification: does the Mumble client as shipped with Debian also 
contain the embedded private library?
> > I assume it would be possible to reintroduce a celt package which was
> > very similar to the one recently removed, so as to avoid risking
> > unnecessary bugs.
> I see that this proposal has already resulted in Chris skating down
> the slippery slope of "let's re-enable it for everything else too".
> And we'll get people with no experience or prior involvement to
> maintain it, and we'll enable multi-arch too, and ...

In terms of re-enabling CELT, I was simply looking upon this as a matter of 
fairness to other maintainers.  If it's decided only Mumble requires an 
exception to use CELT 0.7.1 (which right now doesn't sound like the right 
thing to do), I'm fine with that.

> My general feeling is that mumble is currently in an awkward state
> which really doesn't make it a good release candidate for Wheezy,
> and we'd probably be best served by simply dropping it from testing,
> fixing this in sid as the fixes come or are needed, and then pushing
> snapshots to bpo as we have reasonable candidates for that.
> That was my original recommendation to the release team, but Phil
> offered to cut us some slack with letting things in if I did try
> to salvage it for Wheezy proper, so Svedrin and I put in the effort
> to make that as possible as it might be.
> Maybe that really was a mistake.  I don't mind taking full
> responsibility for my mistakes - but being bullied into making
> even bigger mistakes, by people who didn't understand the set
> that created the problem in the first place, is not in my usual
> definition of wisdom, and the crux of my disagreement with the
> crusade that Chris has embarked on here.

The disagreement was that I wanted a working Mumble, or a warning in 
NEWS.Debian concerning the compatability issues.  That's not a crusade, so I 
object to this mischaracterization.

> Since he didn't bother to wait for Josh and I to discuss that
> further, now we're here ...

There was no indication of any kind that the discussion was going to continue, 
otherwise I would have delayed the summary to the TC.

  -- Chris

Chris Knadle

Reply to: