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

Bug#846002: blends-tasks must be priority:standard and not make a mess out of tasksel menu

Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> writes:

>>> The TC has the power to decide here, and you were asked to do so. If you
>>> think that d-i took the right decision, you should decide so (and then
>>> you don't need to use your power), but not just let them decide.
>> That's what the current ballot effectively says.  We're refusing to
>> override the d-i team.
> No, this is a difference. I asked to decide whether the blends menu
> should go into the installer (in one or the other way), questioning the
> decision of d-i, and you (resp. those who select "A > FD") delegate the
> question back to d-i, without having a detailed technical discussion.
> Ian made the point here, IMO, and I wonder a bit why his critics remains
> unanswered.

I think this is in part a symptom of mixing up multiple questions in one

There seems to be a consensus that the priority change was misguided,
and that's the thing that is primarily being decided here.

If I had had more time in the last month, I'd have put some work into
producing and testing a patch to tasksel to get the blends back in
without the priority changes.  Sadly I've not had that time, and I
suspect that we're too late for such things now.

Personally I think that Cyril's patch to strip out the blends-tasks
tasks was also a mistake -- hopefully we can now revert both the
priority change, and that reaction to it.

I do have time now, so perhaps while we're reverting those changes Cyril
will be open to persuasion that we could also patch the blends back in,
and make the menu clearer overall using my early suggestion of prefixing
the title lines with ===, but I'm certainly not willing to try and force
that decision on him with my TC stick.

The reason I've been mostly quiet on this subject is that I feel like I
have something of a conflict of interest, also being a (mostly lapsed)
D-I team member, so I've been restricting myself to attempting to
propose possible solutions.

I don't know why anyone else didn't respond to Ian's criticism, but for
my part I didn't think it was even slightly helpful for him to be in
effect pushing me further towards the conflict of interest that I'm
attempting to avoid.

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

Reply to: