Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems
On Tue, 06 May 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > Yes, and I think it was wrong that the bug was closed by an upload to
> > experimental instead of to unstable when there was nothing
> > experimental about it.
>
> Daniel is just being extra careful, using experimental a bit more these
> days, to avoid the more discontentment (I don't think there's the need
> of explaining the background and history of his situation). It is my
> opinion that it isn't a good idea to point finger at him for the extra
> care to not break anything.
On the contrary, I believe there is much to be said for his use of
experimental. He failed to update important packages in a timely manner
perusing experimental so that nobody could complain that there was no
update.
For instance, to date, we still don't have a newer syslinux in unstable
while he was eager to push syslinux 5 in unstable during the former
freeze (and I still don't agree with his migration plan
given in #742836 that he closed twice without trying to see whether
I agreed and whether I would not have additional advice...)
The lxc package was severly out of date ever since the wheezy release up
to a few weeks ago. Etc.
</end of digressions>
> to accept patches for them. So I'm all with you on that Steve. I just
> regret the course of events, and the fact that Daniel looked
> uncooperative, when I'm convinced that he is.
I don't believe that he is intentionnally uncooperative but he makes it
difficult to cooperate with him unless you agree with him on everything.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
Reply to: