Bug#846002: blends-tasks must not be priority:important - ballot proposal
Hi Margarita,
On 26.12.2016 14:43, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> While it's great that there is a possibly better solution in the works for the
> tasksel screen, there's still the issue at hand that blends-tasks has used the
> severity of the package as a way of circumventing collaboration with tasksel
> maintainers.
I already several times pointed that out: We did not "circumvent" the
collaboration with the tasksel maintainers.
The relevant bug #758116 was assigned to tasksel for quite a long time,
and the proposed solution to create a package blends-tasks was announced
exactly there -- so the proposal was on the desk of the tasksel
maintainers, explicitly asking if they would veto.
The first response from a tasksel maintainer came only five weeks later,
without a veto, but with a discussion that finally lead to the current
wording and selection. This is not what I would usually call "circumvent
collaboration".
For any other critics, the usual way to collaborate is to open a bug
report. This did not happen then before of this bug (#846002). #846002
was again based on the first version of blends-tasks (see Holgers
initial message), and he failed to rebase it within an reasonable time
(and the original critics were already handled by the update to
blends-tasks 0.6.94 as described above).
And, again, IMO the d-i team several times expressed their heavy
overload. It seems natural that working on the blends selection in
tasksel or the correct wording should be done by the people who actually
deal with the blends, avoiding to put additional load on them.
Could you support your accusation a bit? I have the feeling that you are
ignoring my arguments (since I have put them here already).
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: