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

Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:32:55AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:

> > You say that this issue should be brought up to the ctte, but that we (the
> > three persons you're mentioning) basically can't do that because we're not a
> > developer and therefore that would be inappropriate. 
> Look. I really think your kind-of-renegade attitude towards becoming a

There's no renegade. At least only as much as there's a cabal... ;) 

> DD ("They can't communicate! I don't want to be part of a project where

I didn't said that all DDs can't communicate. Some are excellent in that.
Some are not.
But I do think that communication is part of the work in some role positions
where other peoples work depend on the work of those people who are in these
positions. And when these people can't communicate because it's always been
said that they have too much work to communicate, then I think it's best to
load off some work from those people or find another way to work around this
communication problem. See my mail to tbm.  

> they can't communicate! But nevertheless I donate my time to the
> project") is kind of cool (not as cool as Overfiend used to before he
> became a politician, but still), but you're wasting everybody's time
> here.

So it's better to have other people waste *my* time then? (Because I waste
my time as others do because those are unresponsive or don't do their work
> If Nathanael and you don't want to become DDs, that's fine, but both
> sides have to live with the consequences. One of the consequences is
> that you don't get to demand stuff from respected DDs, just because you
> happen to think otherwise.

Oh, it's not the case I don't want to become a DD... I really would like to,
but there are reasons why I don't apply as NM. 
> > > For buildds that's James and Ryan; and they've been doing that
> > > very well for years now.
> > Apparently that isn't anymore the case. 
> Apparently *you believe* this is not anymore the case. Apart from calc,

See the mails on debian-mips the last months. I'm not alone with my believe.

> I don't see a lot of DDs argue about this. And aj, elmo and neuro seem

See the archive for m68k-build for "please built my package!"-mails.  

> to be either not much concerned or working on it, so this is perfectly

"not much concerned" is maybe the right word... ;-)

> alright with me. And for the record, I'm working on the Hurd port, and
> we did not have an autobuilder *for over half a year*.
> IMHO, buildds are important, but keeping them current is not nearly as
> important as you want to believe. It's not like "OMG, a buildd went
> down, stop the presses!!!1!". And it's not a sport either ("If we've had
> three more buildd for arch foo, we'd be up from 97.3% to at least 98.5%,
> but *you* block the future of mankind")

Wrong. See ajs Mail about that port become real thingie. The ports must
fulfill a certain percentage of built packages to get released (as one
requirement). Dropping from 97% to under 95% or 90% can happen fast, whereas
getting back to 97% can take *weeks*. When this happens at release time,
everything is getting worse because of frequent uploads of packages. 
So, blocking suitable buildds from getting w-b access *is* actually blocking
at least the future of the port. 
As said in another mail, we wouldn't have that small backlog when Goswin,
Wouter and Stephen would invest their time to workaround this issue. I guess
we would have more likely a backlog of about 250-300 packages. 
When Goswins machines would have w-b access that would take extra and
unnecessary workload from these people giving them time to work on other
issues like d-i. 

> > > *None* of them have been necessary or productive, and if that's the
> > > reward for the level of contributions James has offered the project,
> > > then it's clear that the project doesn't want responsible committed
> > > people to be a part of it.
> > Maybe they're just not productive because some[TM] people block the whole
> > process from being productive? Would be worth a though, eh? ;)
> I don't see how the whole process is being blocked. Why don't you let

When they would do their work, nobody would complain. But there are
complaints. Still there was no reasoning of Ryan why qt-x11-free wasn't
built for about a month, although it is his work as a buildd admin to ensure
the packages to get built. When he can't deal with that, he has to accept
unnice questions about it. 

> elmo and neuro do their work in the way they think is best, while *you*
> do *your* work (as in the m68k team does the m68k porting) in the way
> you think is best.

Right. And sometimes we need to interact with each other and work together,
which can't be done when - you guess it! - there's one party that is
unreachable for communication. 
Sometime they need some information from me, sometimes I need information
from them. And neither can do their work when the other side don't

> If this includes running a seperate wanna-build
> database, I think this would be an acceptable compromise for the time
> being, and I don't get why you guys rather like running against the
> 'James Troup Wall[TM]' then getting the work done.

Running a seperate w-b produces extra work for others, such as ftp-masters.
This is not the way to go. M68k had its own w-b back then and it was
shutdown for that reason. 

Ciao...              // 
      Ingo         \X/

Reply to: