Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes: > Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> (2016-12-24): >> OK, this is tiresome -- you're complaining about question marks when I >> was still exploring the options and looking for feedback -- I could >> instead have been definite about an earlier option, but that would >> have deprived you of choices, and would not have resulted in a patch >> as good as it is now. >> >> Please don't punish me for being open about my feelings on the various >> commits because if you do that you'll reap the whirlwind when people >> start lying to you to get past your superficial metrics. > > My initial comments weren't about those. I've no idea what you mean by that sentence really, but it's possible that it renders the rest of this mail totally irrelevant, so feel free to clarify in that case. > But they indeed add up with > what I mentioned earlier, and this tends to confirm that december, > with a freeze already started, is just not the right time to start > exploring options. > > Sorry, but my mind is made up here: it's just too late (1) to change > tasksel entirely, (2) to require translation updates we're already not > getting in time, be it for screens, and for the installation guide. > > I'll stop repeating myself here, and start enjoying festivities. Just in case there was any doubt, I have no problem with the decision that this is all too late -- it was clear that might well be the outcome when I started this, so I'm not surprised. I was just concerned that you might be basing that decision on some false perceptions. Now that I've had chance to check, it seems that there was just one commit with a question mark in the commit message: "move the task lists into the template (to make it preseedable?)" http://deb.li/3maqd which was only there to remind me to check if I could find a way of preseeding the Choices-C: value (seems not, BTW). It also happens to be the commit where the '; then' was missing (which I guess would be the obvious syntax errors you mention). Perhaps you saw that commit being present from 09:28 on Dec 20th and only being fixed at 22:07 on Dec 22nd and thought I was being totally rubbish. In fact, the reason I pushed that on the morning of the 20th was because I knew I was going to be busy all day and wanted jenkins to also be busy testing for me while I was out. Of course, when I came back, I discovered that by then d-i FTBFS because of the dejavu rename, so then I spent some time fixing that (leaving the broken commit in place even longer). So, if you are judging this negatively on the basis of that commit, then you are failing to understand that the reason you saw that commit was because I was attempting to get jenkins to do some testing for me while I didn't have time to do it myself -- which is rather the point of jenkins. The reason it stayed there so long unfixed with its question mark was because of the dejavu rename FTBFS. I do not point this out in an attempt to change your decision in this particular case, but rather to point out that it makes little sense to be overly judgemental about such a commit. The reason I've been putting effort into jenkins is so that people (myself in particular) should be able to throw commits at jenkins and have them tested without worrying too much about whether they are perfect. The hope being that this would lower the bar for contributions by letting people play in safety while getting decent feedback about whether their efforts were producing viable results. Frowning at people when they then use that system for its designed purpose seems just a tad counter productive. Anyway, no hard feelings, and I hope you're having fun :-) Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature