Re: [OT] lazy maintainers
On 09 Aug 2001 00:09:40 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 08:28:37AM -0500, Jared Johnson wrote:
> > > A suboptimal package has already been uploaded. Myth may not be able
> > > or willing to make any improvements on it right now, but Kitame appears
> > > to be able to. As long as Kitame's not going to screw up Myth's future
> > > uploads, why shouldn't Kitame upload? Who exactly loses out?
> > Except that Myth is able and willing to make improvements, and is doing
> > so; he just hasn't uploaded them, which is his decision... at least as
> > long as it doesn't screw a release all to hell.
>
> So what? It doesn't matter at all what anyone's doing at home, it matters
> what's uploaded. If Kitame's uploading something that's useful to people,
> that's a good thing. If Frank (Myth)'s working on stuff on his machine
> that'll eventually get uploaded and whip the pants off of Kitame's
> uploads, that's even better. There's no reason why they can't both happen.
I don't really agree with you, but that's my opinion... in any case, i
don't really have much confidence in the quality of kitame's packages,
given their history
On a technical basis, it wouldn't be so great fixing some of the bugs
caused by upstream version in debian and created twice as many more bugs
caused by packaging problems and some more caused by upstream version
with Frank's upload would have fixed
> > Sounds nice, but I wouldn't really like someone packaging the same
> > software as me and uploading it as package-foo simply because they
> > didn't like the way I did things.
>
> Then, well, get over it.
>
> Technical objections matter. Whether it makes you feel as good as daisies
> and ice cream or not, doesn't really. If you've got a real reason not to
> upload it, then that'll apply to Kitame too. If it's just because you
> don't feel ready to make an upload yet, well, that doesn't necessarily
> apply to anyone else. If you've got 7 outstanding release critical bugs,
> you really shouldn't be remotely surprised if someone else decides to
> try making the damn thing work. [4 against mozilla, 1 against each of
> mozilla-browser, mozilla-dev and mozilla-xmlterm]
>
> None of which is to belittle Myth's work on his packages. You don't
> have to take NMU's as a criticism or as insinuating that you're not
> fulfilling your duties, or anything of the sort; you can just take it
> as an indication that someone else values your package enough to go out
> of their way to improve it a bit.
I don't really take an NMU itself as criticism; however, nobody seemed
to have consulted Frank about doing an NMU before announcing they'd be
doing it in a few days, and then everyone and their mother seemed to
chime in with "ah it's bloody well that you are, for myth isn't
fulfilling his duties" and other things of the sort. I would consider
this insulting if this were me, and would be especially annoyed if it
weren't true, and it indeed does not look to be true.
Debian isn't about making people feel like daisies and ice cream, but it
is about collaboration, and I don't see this mini-fiasco to be even an
attempt at that.
--
Jared Johnson
solomon@futureks.net
GPG Key ID: DF 28 CD 64
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/C d+(-)>-- s:+ a18 C++++$ UL++++>$ P+>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ o? K-
w--- !O
M-- V-- !PS !PE Y PGP- t+ 5-- X R-- tv- b+ DI>+ !D G e>++(>+++) h-- r*
y-(>+++)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Reply to: