Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:36:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > I think it is perfectly reasonable for them to make their case on
> > debian-devel. What is it about setting out the complaint here that
> > offends you so much?
> The charter for debian-devel is technical discussion about Debian
> development. This isn't technical discussion, it's a demand that either
> a delegate reverse a decision, or the DPL remove them. That's off-topic,
> and utterly inappropriate from a non-developer; it would be on-topic for
> the technical ctte if it was brought up by a developer (which Nathanael,
> Ingo and Goswin aren't), and that developer was actually significantly
So it is true that DDs are an elitist group and non DDs are of a
lesser breed and have no voice? Intresting.
> affected by the lack of buildds (which ttbomk, no one actually is --
> were this a bug, it'd be "wishlist", for it to be appropriate to involve
> the tech ctte it should be at least "important").
So your saying a problem affecting all Debian testing users (including
developers using testing) as well as the maintainers of the 79
packages being help out of testing in this instance is just off-topic,
irelevant because its unimportant and should not be discussed or
Martin investigate the problem of the qt-x11-free build now answering
the questions I asked Ryan. Guess what he found out. The buildd is
configured to not build qt-x11-free unless its idle otherwise. Ryan
could have checked, fixed and said so in under 5 minutes.
> It's an ill-advised complaint because the right way for decisions to
> be made is to have the person who has to clean up after them making
> them. For buildds that's James and Ryan; and they've been doing that
> very well for years now.
Oh James and Ryan. Could you each hit the other over the head for not
responding please. Thank you.
Come on, that just doesn't work. Also the decision in question would
put someone else in charge of cleaning up so shouldn't the future
cleaner (the person taking over cleaning up) make the decision then? I
don't think giving the person not doing the clean u or the person
wanting to do a "hostile" take over to clan up make the decision alone
results in a working environment. Asking the Project Leader to act as
a mediator sounds like the best way to solve such problems.
And no matter how well they did in the past years, in the last months
they have been swamped with work and not doing such a good job on the
"less important" jobs aparently. Debian is growing, each job is
growing. When one runs out of time for all of them its time to
delegate some work. Best to start when the first temporary shortages
appear and train assistants (which in this case are trained already)
while there is still some breathing room.
> But what's particularly offensive about it, is that there have been
> idiotic flamewars like this against James approximately every couple
> of weeks for the past few years. *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.
Doesn't the fact that its a repeating theme suggest anything to you?
Like that there actually is a problem? I haven't seen stupid recurring
flamewars against Martin for example. He must be doing something right
and James something wrong to encourage such flames.
> > Let's get the problems out in the open so they can be identified and
> > fixed.
> Flamewars on this list correlate very poorly with actual problems
> facing Debian.