Re: Release is currently inflexible...was Re: Upcoming Debian Releases
> This is in reply to your latest postind on the release schedule. I am very
> disapointed to see that none of the ideas being discussed by developers
> have made it into your release design. The most recent list posted has NO
> changes from the last list you posted. If you are going to insist on
> ignoring the input from the rest of the developers, what is the point in
> our being here?
Ah, Dale. I always appreciate how you keep your temper and make nice,
helpful comments instead of the constant complaining that some would be
tempted to do.
> You haven't changed the status of "make all packages conform to the new
> source package format". I know you don't think this is important, but many
> of us do. Bruce even indicated that this was something that should get
> higher priority.
I put things on the list that others have talked about and I change them
when I see the opinions of the group change. The current list, however,
only has too settings: critical & non-critical. There are no other
measures of importance. If you can tell me and everyone else that
you would seriously consider _not_ shipping the next release because some
of the source packages are not in the new form, then I will be happy to
change the status. I had not gathered that people had considered it
_that_ important.
Also, if this is what you wish, please go ahead and file critical bugs
against every package which has source in the wrong format. In fact,
I believe my post specifically says to file bugs against all packages
that don't meet these goals, but I don't recall seeing one bug report
about this. Perhaps they were all sent maint-only... But then, I'm
sure some of my older packages are not correct here and I didn't
receive any reports. For somebody so concerned about this point, you
don't seem to be doing very much about it. Perhaps it is not as important
to you as your are making it out to be?
> We have had some very good discussions about what constitutes a critical
> bug, all of which has been totaly ignored in your list.
My humblest appologies. With almost 200 msgs a day sometimes and some
very pressing deadlines (for work in which I get paid, that is), I have
been only reading a few threads these past few weeks. This is no doubt
a situation unique to me and this I will endeavor to remedy this.
> I think everyone has agreed that the really major problem with the release
> currently is the many packages with broken or unappropriate depends that
> force dselect into failure.
Yes, I do seem to recall this. In fact, I seem to recall first suggesting
that dependancies be checked before being put into "fixed" and this is now
being worked on. But, at your pleasent request, I will re-add the section
on things to do for Rex and include this point.
> None of these issues are reflected in your current "release design". I
> think I speak for many others when I say that I don't like being dictated
> to, or being ignored. I need to see some indication that you are at least
> listening to the desires and goals of others, even when they don't agree
> with yours.
I have no "release design". I've merely made a repository of points that
I have read on the lists because I thought it would be helpful to keep
ideas for getting forgotton. This is not a dictation. I do not set policy.
Perhaps you could try some "helpful suggestions". Your attitude does nothing
to make me want to help you. In my experience, you either agree with someone
or you fight bitterly against them. I don't _ever_ recall you actually
working with someone to come up with a better solution. Perhaps you have
and I simply don't remember, but what does about any kind of ratio?
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: