Re: [OT] lazy maintainers
On 08 Aug 2001 22:26:49 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 06:54:51AM -0500, Jared Johnson wrote:
> > On 08 Aug 2001 21:08:15 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > why? what's so evil about that? debian isn't a turf-war game of "mine,
> > > mine, mine".
> >
> > debian isn't a turf-war game specifically because debian developers
> > respect each others' imagined jurisdictions.
>
> no, it's because most of us think that getting the job done at all is
> far more important than WHO does it.
okay, well, you're disagreeing with debian policy. go propose a vote on
whether to change it. till then, you can disagree with it all you want
but don't condone actually doing it.
>
>
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-nmu.en.html
> >
> > Do I even need to point out that this makes it painfully clear that
> > it is off limits to do an NMU without the maintainer of the package
> > giving explicit permission or else being MIA for a long time?
>
> it makes it painfully clear that it doesn't cover this situation.
i guess.. you're blind. it speaks to it very plainly by stating the
exclusive conditions for an NMU: a freeze, and (1) a consenting
maintainer or (2) an MIA maintainer. I think possibly one could give
exception to a maintainer that is a complete asshole, in the case of
abiword for instance. In this situation, none of these conditions are
present.
> > Myth is not MIA.
>
> as far as mozilla is concerned, he may as well be.
Myth. Is. Not. MIA. MIA is pretty bloody well defined, and the
definition is pretty bloody well not satisfied by this situation.
>
> > Kitame, on the other hand, has simply told debian-devel that he plans
> > to NMU mozilla on account of alot of people wanting it. This is
> > simply unacceptible.
>
> in your opinion.
>
> OTOH, i think it's perfectly acceptable.
> someone doesn't want to do the job they volunteered to do (and yes, he
> does have fairly valid reasons - that's irrelevant), and now we have
> someone who IS willing to do that job. let him do it.
alright, but again your perverted looney opinion conflicts with clearly
stated debian policy on multiple points, so you'd better bloody well get
the majority of debian developers to lose their minds and agree with you
in a vote before you go on encouraging people to violoate it.
> > > if a package maintainer, for whatever reason, is unwilling or unable
> > > to perform the task he volunteered for (i.e. maintain a particular
> > > package) then he should NOT get in the way of anyone else who is
> > > willing to do the work.
> >
> > Myth is neither unwilling nor unable to maintain it; in fact, he is
> > maintaining it.
>
> in precisely what manner is he maintaining it? by doing absolutely
> nothing?
As I stated before maintaining != uploading. Have you never done
significant work on a large and difficult package for a long period
_before_ uploading it? In any case, even if you haven't, he is;
unfortunately, many people are too interested in getting their latest
mozilla to recognize this, hence the large amount of whining, accusing,
and witch hunting aimed at a guy who's working hard.
> > > IMO, it's sitting on a package and doing nothing with it that is evil.
> >
> > Myth isn't sitting on any package, he's developing a package.
>
> there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this theory of yours.
Talk to Myth. I have. If Myth doesn't talk to you, perhaps it's
because you have nothing to do with the solution and are only one of the
countless "interested parties" pestering him about it.
>
> > Not uploading a suboptimal package is not evil.
>
> no it's not. it happens all the time.
>
> in fact, since no package is perfect (aka "optimal") it happens EVERY
> time.
Don't play semantics. You know what I'm talking about. In any case,
he's alloud to make the decisions here as to what cuts it and what
doesn't.
>
> > > but we have someone else who is willing to do what myth is unwilling
> > > to do. problem solved. nobody, and that includes myth, should
> > > obstruct that.
> >
> > bzzzzzt wrong, as i showed above.
>
> nope. you showed nothing. you made an assertion, but that assertion is
> just plain wrong.
bzzzzzt bzzzzzzzzzzzt! hear that it is the big buzzer that means you
are wrong wrong wrong! still going off AAAAA BZZZZZZZZZT IT IS GETTING
LOUD AND LOUDER SIGNIFYING THE PROFOUND WRONGNESS OF YOU
BUAAAAAAAAAAR!!!
> > > it's not a matter of a week, or even a few weeks.
> > > if history is anything to go by, it will be many months.
> >
> > History is nothing to go by. The issues which obstructed mozilla's
> > post-M18 versions from being uploaded are now non-issues.
>
> so you claim.
>
> proof requires more than just a vague claim.
talk to myth. i have. etc. etc. etc.
I might add that the debian developer's reference doesn't mention
anything about "if you don't have any evidence of what the maintainer
sayes is true when you contact him, feel free to NMU at will whether or
not we're frozen"
> > If most people aren't informed of the issues which are now preventing
> > upload of the new pakacages, perhaps it's because Myth is too
> > disgusted with their disrespectful comments about him, or perhaps
> > because he's busy working on making the packages better.
>
> you're the one who is turning this into an issue of respect or disrespect
> for myth.
>
> this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with myth. it's about the package, not the
> person.
>
> for reasons of his own, he is not maintaining this package. somebody
> else is willing to do the job. let them.
> i'd say the same thing for ANY package by ANY maintainer.
If you say this about any maintainer who has not given consent to an
NMU, you're making the assumption that the maintainer isn't doing his
job and doesn't really care (or he would consent to an NMU). If this
assumption is accurate (*cough* abiword *cough*), fine; if it's
fallacious, it's insulting.
> I say the same thing for MY packages. if someone wants to NMU my
> packages, i'm not going to stop them. i may even use their changes in
> my next upload (or i may not - i certainly don't feel any obligation to
> keep their stuff) or i may orphan it if i realise that i'm not living
> up to my duties as maintainer of that package. debian is more important
> than my alleged "ownership" of any packages.
Good, then you will have given consent. This would mean that whatever
was done, it would not be a violation of policy. I congratulate you or
something.
> maintaining a package is not ownership, it is custodianship.
Yes, but, as debian developer documentation clearly points out,
developers don't have the right to go fscking with each others'
custodianship without consent or causes made clear in said
documentation.
> nothing gives package maintainers any right to sit on a package and do
> nothing.
your "sit on a package and do nothing" statement has nothing to do with
myth, and any assumption that he is doing this is unfounded and
completely contrary to fact.
have a nice day.
--
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: