Re: Developer Behavior
On Tuesday 09 January 2001 03:17, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on
> "unstable" and will never encourage a non-developer to run "unstable".
I understand that people don't like being told what to do and agree that it
isn't the place of Debian policy to tell us what to do when we aren't doing
strictly Debian development work).
But I think that there is some merit to having discouragement towards running
unstable on production machines. I've been getting flamed immensely recently
about my lilo package that over-wrote lilo.conf incorrectly. Even though:
1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only
stop it from booting.
2) I am working on this as fast as possible given the constraints of
available time, dpkg issues, and not wanting to release a second non-perfect
3) I have on several occasions recently had worse things happen to me as a
result of running unstable, there have been several occasions when running
machines have been rendered unusable because of bugs in packages (it became
impossible to login). In these occasions I have not felt it necessary to
flame the maintainers.
The people who flame the developers contribute nothing. When they report
bugs that exist they invariably do so after more polite people have already
reported them and the developer has started work. Then work has to be
interrupted to spend time fighting off flames.
I don't think that unstable should be limited to Debian developers, but I
think that it should be restricted to discourage people who aren't reading
debian-devel. What if we setup the servers to use a different random
password every month that was only announced on debian-devel?
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page