On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 07:09:34PM +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote:
> I fail to follow your reasoning here, if you don't like the packaging you
> should say so, as you're not the maintainer, just a sponsor, and not change
> it to fit your likings without consent. Not fixing the RC bug on time is
> responsibility of the maintainer for not providing a good packaging, not
> yours.
I'm sorry, but that's not how I see things. IMO I help the maintainer
get the package in good shape. The result is a package which has a bit
of me and a lot of the maintainer. Doing an extra iteration for some
last details is just not worth the time. The package was good, and I
felt it important that it got uploaded soon. I don't feel about it as
"so what if the bug is fixed later, that's not my responsibility".
Debian is all about creating the best OS possible. Every DD should try
to help to reach that goal. Leaving an RC bug unfixed is not good, and
every DD should consider it a problem. I happen to be a DD who can
actually do something about it. So I do.
I would agree with your arguments if this would be about large changes.
But that's not the case. This is about a line which has no effect
whatsoever on the package, but only on the next upload (if it can or
cannot be done by Miriam, although I didn't realize it was about her,
since I wasn't informed about the reason of the line). Not doing this
upload still means nothing changes until the next upload, so the
difference between uploading now without the line and not uploading now
(in both cases with the option of uploading later) is only that the new
package is actually available to the users. And that's something I
want. And I shall not hide behind "it's not my responsibility" to make
it not happen.
I also think I'm by far not the only DD who feels about it like this.
It's not unusual to see on -mentors something along the lines of "I
uploaded the package with those things changed, as the rest was fine".
So if people really want their packages to be uploaded "exactly like
this, or not at all", then I suggest they should write this in every RFS
e-mail they send. I would of course honour such a request, but I will
continue to not make it the default.
> "power grab", backdoor... is good to be a security paranoid but not to the
> point of not talking before acting.
The reason of doing the upload wasn't that I am security paranoid, but
that I considered the new package a big improvement, and that I expected
(incorrectly) that it would take some time (a few days) to get enough
responses to consider the discussion "closed". First asking, then
saying "well, this takes too long, I'll upload anyway", would not help
much in getting the improvements to our users fast. And it probably
also wouldn't help in preventing "damage".
> I'm pretty sure if you had expressed your fears before uploading you
> would have been granted the permission to remove the flag and nobody's
> feelings would have been hurt.
You're wrong about that. The fact that that flag was there without any
mention and without any question to me has bothered me. This is also
the reason I may have sounded a bit agressive. I tried to keep it out
of it, but I was pretty annoyed at the situation.
> Reverting that is not as easy as adding or removing flags,
> unfortunately, and the "fix a RC bug" excuse is not worth the damage,
> IMHO.
I considered changing details before uploading as completely normal (and
still do), so I didn't need an excuse for that. I would also not have
expected any damage from it. And actually, I think (and certainly hope)
that the damage that was done is limited to triggering a break to
prevent a burn-out. I wouldn't even consider that "damage" at all, I
would consider it a good thing.[1]
Thanks,
Bas
[1] I've also had some personal communication with Miriam, and she isn't
angry with me.
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature