Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
2014-05-03 19:53 GMT+02:00 Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
> Thomas Goirand writes ("Bug#746715: Shocking read ..."):
>> I'm really stoned by reading this bug. Daniel is nicely proposing to
>> accept patches from Steve, and re-add support for Upstart, and he just
>> wrote that Steve could have just get in touch.
>
> This is backwards.
>
> If the maintainer had a problem with the patches, they should have
> explained the problem earlier. I think there is no excuse for the
> maintainer's behaviour in this case. The maintainer has even now,
> after being challenged, failed to come up with an explanation.
I absolutely disagree. The maintainer previously accepted a hackish
patch to solve an issue. Now, since systemd has been selected as
default and upstart was dropped by Ubuntu, he did what every good
maintainer should do and dropped the patch, because it didn't seem to
be needed anymore, and the justification for the hack went away. Now
that people came stating that the use-case for the patch is still
valid, the matter was discussed and the maintainer was open for
patch-reinclusion and discussion, and in the end an even better
solution was achieved.
So, nothing wrong here and I agree with Thomas.
> Under the circumstances I think the maintainer should at the very
> least have contacted the patch submitter before reverting the patch.
Indeed, that could have been done to improve that matter, but that
this hasn't been done is not immediately obvious from the changelog
entry you quoted. And really, the TC should not babysit people for
good behaviour of contacting patch submitters - this was just a minor
think in this case, and it has been dealt with.
> I think that the rapid escalation to the TC, to at the very least
> supervise the conversation, is entirely appropriate in this case. I'm
> glad to see that this conversation has now resulted in the maintainer
> agreeing to reinstate the patch.
Are you sure he wouldn't have accepted the changed without the TC? I
pretty much have the impression that the TC wasn't necessary at all
here...
> [...]
2014-05-04 1:03 GMT+02:00 Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#746715: Shocking read ..."):
>> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
>> > the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
>> > merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
>> > support without a compelling reason.
>>
>> Did the TC previously agree that we should support multiple init
>> systems? As far as I know only a default was selected, and I'm
>> not sure if something like that this was ever voted on or not.
>
> The TC has not formally expressed a view on this.
> [...]
Exactly! So even if he dropped the upstart stuff entirely, there
wouldn't have been something wrong from the perspective of the TC.
Only from your perspective. And IMO it's just fairt to assume good
faith that people will support the maximum amount of different
configuration options for their packages, as long as feasible.
Cheers,
Matthias
--
Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
Reply to: