Bug#1020923: tech-ctte: please clarify if atomic updates are required
Not a TC member so just jumping in from the outside with a personal
opinion, which everyone should take or leave as they see fit.
Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> writes:
> I know that if I suggest you to bring the issue to d-devel@l.d.o it will
> fuel a flamewar, but I see no other proper way to handle _this
> particular mail_. Maybe the request could be phrased differently, in a
> way it could encompass this bug report (i.e. "ask the TC whether we
> might use sloppy techniques when upgrading, considering the risks we
> take as acceptable" (of course, I don't mean your job is sloppy, it's
> just an example text that will not be accepted if asked 😉)
I think it's also worth noting that the default assumption in Debian is
that the package maintainer sets the priorities of bugs and work on that
package, and also that, as always in Debian, no one requires that you do
work, only that people do not block other people's work.
So if you don't believe this is a significant risk, or if you think other
Debian work is more important, you are, as always, empowered by Debian to
act accordingly. You can deprioritize the bug and do the work that you
think is important.
If someone else disagrees and thinks this needs to be immediately
addressed, the onus is on them to either concretely propose a fix that's
acceptable to you and take responsibility for rolling out that fix,
escalating to the TC if they can't find a fix acceptable to you, or taking
some other proactive action like fixing their problem in another package.
You are not required to do that proactively when you don't think it's
warranted.
You've done the bug triage, and you don't agree with the bug submitter,
and you're applying what you view is appropriate prioritization. That's
really all Debian asks you to do.
I know we're in a very awkward place right now because we have some
project-wide bugs where there is serious and deep disagreement over where
those bugs should be fixed, so everything feels larger and more
significant than a regular bug. And in a way I suppose that's true, but I
think one good way to navigate such situations is to fall back on our
process and let the process work itself out.
Unfortunately, with this current set of bugs, it seems unlikely that we're
going to manage to make everyone happy in the short term, which means
there's going to be a tense period where some folks feel strongly that
we're doing this wrong. But more discussion, unless it's about truly new
approaches, often makes that kind of situation worse rather than better.
We may have to just uncomfortably sit with the disagreement for a while
and incrementally work our way out of it.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: