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

Re: woody is getting worse...

On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 02:35:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:13:43AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with your work maintaining XFree, (which is obviously
> > much appreciated).  It has to do with a bug that you _knew_ made the server 
> > unusable in some configurations.  When I was personally hit by this bug, I
> > was pretty pissed off, but since I was running unstable, I really didn't have
> > anything to complain about.  But the entire point of having "unstable" is to
> > eliminate bugs like this before they get to "testing".  If this isn't going
> > to be the case anymore, then we ought to ditch testing, because it's
> > obviously useless.
> So we should throw out testing because this particular bug slipped
> through?

No, we should stop bugs like this from getting through, because they degrade
the value of testing.

> Don't worry, I do indeed regret that this bug made it into testing, if
> for no other reason than that all the personal attacks are exasperating.

For the record, I'm not personally attacking you, I just happen to think you
made a bad decision by letting this bug slip into testing.
> Alternatively, such matters can be left to the maintainer's discretion,
> and when his opinion is disagreed with, people can upgrade the bug in
> conjunction with a persuasive argument.  In this case, nobody bothered.
> Since it's my package, I take full responsibility for the fuckup.  But I
> find it intriguing that when you were "pretty pissed off", you didn't
> take any initiative to see that the package didn't proceed into testing
> in such a state.

I never considered that you would allow the package to get into testing in
this state.  I also hadn't considered that you would let a significant amount
of time pass before fixing the bug in unstable.  These are mistakes that I 
do not intend to repeat again -- look forward to some good haranguing by me 
in the future.

> 1) thought that users of testing and unstable, by and large, read
> debian-devel;

Most of us "try" to read debian-devel, but the volume on any good day makes
it impossible to read every post.

> 2) thought that users of testing and unstable, by and large, bothered to
> check for the existence of previously filed bugs on a subject;

I checked.  There was nothing in the high-severity bugs that looked like it
described my problem (not to mention the fact that I also didn't immediately
know what the problem was, I originally assumed it was a problem with my
video card or XF86Config-4.)  That was when I asked in #debian-devel and was
told that there was a post here that explained the problem and a solution.

> 4) thought that users of testing and unstable, by and large, would take
> the initiative to challenge my assessment of the bug's severity before
> the package went into woody, if they sincerely disagreed with that
> assessment.

And I was under the impression that, in your usual habit of providing an
excellent package, you had already uploaded a fixed version and that it was 
something I didn't need to worry about.  This would have been consistent with
your past actions when small typos or other small problems have rendered X 
unusable for a significant portion of the userbase.

Adam McKenna  <adam@debian.org>  <adam@flounder.net>

Reply to: