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

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)


> Date:    03 Jan 2001 17:16:44 +0100
> To:      debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> From:    Peter Makholm <peter@makholm.net>
> Subject: Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)
> Return-Path: bounce-debian-devel=jim=laney.edu@lists.debian.org
> Delivery-Date: Wed Jan  3 08:17:24 2001
> Return-Path: <bounce-debian-devel=jim=laney.edu@lists.debian.org>
> Resent-Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:17:23 -0800
> X-Envelope-Sender: peter@makholm.net
> Sender:  brother@hacking.dk
> References: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0101012226400.97296-100000@scatha.internet.powells.c
>      ***om>
> 	 <[🔎] 200101030345.TAA32495@earth.laney.edu>
> 	 <[🔎] 20010103172355.D10123@taz.net.au>
> 	 <[🔎] 200101031416.GAA02510@earth.laney.edu> <[🔎] 87bsto67g2.fsf@hacking.dk>
> 	 <[🔎] 200101031603.IAA03367@earth.laney.edu>
> X-Home-Page: http://peter.makholm.net/
> Xyzzy:   Nothing happens!
> In-Reply-To: Jim Lynch's message of "Wed, 03 Jan 2001 08:03:02 -0800"
> Lines:   28
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.7
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Resent-Message-ID: <ZC_xP.A.vsC.LC1U6@murphy>
> Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> X-Mailing-List: <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/77093
> X-Loop:  debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> Jim Lynch <jim@laney.edu> writes:
> Could you please read the Developers Reference section 4.1 second
> paragraph.

Is that the paragraph you quote below? It's in documentation slated
for -developers-. For this reason, its name is the Developers Reference :)

People are scared of references (man pages and the like); a -developers-
reference will scare them off their continent :) But, I try -hard- to 
get them to read. Most will not.

> > When machines break for whatever reason, sometimes people come to 
> > #debian for help. It's unhelpful to encourage people to break their
> > mission-critical servers... If Eric wants to do it himself, fine.
> Call me cynical but if people doesn't read documentation, fine with
> me. 

My take is that people should become sufficiently informed by themselves
before asking questions; that's not really a requirement, we try helping
anyways... but it always helps to know the person you're trying to explain
something to can actually understand you :) Otherwise, it's an exercise
in futility and frustration.

I'm given to understand that debian-user@l.d.o has a read-first policy...
I'd be strongly in favor of having that also be the policy on #debian.

> But you can tell me what is hard to understand at
> http://www.debian.org/release/unstable/:
>    This distribution is currently in ``testing'' phase. That means
>    that things might break if you run it. Anyone running woody is
>    expected to be informed about any volatilities, usually by
>    following developer-oriented mailing lists;
> But that is an old discussion.
> > Of course, not many developers like coming to #debian due to its 
> > present noisiness and relative newbishness, or maybe for other
> If the existence of unstable should be a secret on #debian I
> understand why others developers doesn't come there anymore.

No secret. Just no encouragement for someone to run unstable software
in situations that demand stability. I never said it should be secret,
but I am saying that people should not be encouraged to kill off their
computer, unless it's made clear what can happen, or where they should
read about what can happen, both as it relates to software in general
that has instabilities, and as it relates to debian's faster develop-
ment cycle -- which potentially causes and historically has caused
temporary breakage.

> I only
> shows up on devel once in a while and mostly to see the topic or hear
> why unstable broke but that is primaly because I don't really wants to
> waste time on irc.

I thought you might say this :) in this case, the discussion is over, and
you're choosing not only to not help, but to not view the situation :)
Because you're uninformed about the situation, please stop questioning
my rights in the situation.


Reply to: