Re: Sarge release (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
- To: Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Sarge release (Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
- From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:55:20 -0300
- Message-id: <20050315005520.GB2514@khazad-dum.debian.net>
- In-reply-to: <20050315002230.GH26922@pegasos>
- References: <20050314044505.GA5157@mauritius.dodds.net> <20050314182333.GH9970@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org> <20050314215835.GI19206@pegasos> <20050314224403.GA31132@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20050314234735.GC26922@pegasos> <20050315001242.GA28105@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20050315002230.GH26922@pegasos>
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> Since when are you following these issues ? and what experience do you have
> with how debian works ? And did you read Anthony's post on how this worked
Since 1998 I think, and I experienced first hand how difficult is to get
something through some tick heads while trying to get invoke-rc.d accepted
(I was not even a DD yet at that time, I think). I have been following a
lot of debian MLs (including private, devel, users and policy) since then.
Long enough to know how these things play out most of the time.
> > Well, if it is done the other way, you get utter lack of respect from
> > maintainers that can't even read the damn thing twice and think about it
> > before firing their guns (and you end up with a flamewar just as well).
> Yep, as for NEW processing, lack of response from ftp-masters, lack of
> response from the centralized buildd admins when porters propose their help,
> or the AMD64 flamewar we had all those month ago, and so on ... It is always
> the same scheme, and then we are accused of being ungratefull bitchers,
Well, I certainly did not say anything about biching or ungrateful. And I
won't go into the other points since they are not particular to this thread
anyway. We all know what a LOT of DDs think of the way these things have
been handled so far.
> Yep, but is it a symptom of a profund lack of understanding (or caring), of
> how these things are received by the rest of the DDs, and a dismissal of the
True. But can you honestly say you expected anything different? It is damn
good progress that we are having this thread at all (and it will be a damn
really great thing if all the issues raised here are heard and fixed...). I
hope things keep getting better.
> work they do who is somehow considered as less important, or in the case of
> the minor arches, as maybe troublesome even in light of this report.
The minor arches are NOT a problem. The current buildd structure is a major
sore point with MANY DDs and we *do* know this is not the fault of the minor
arches themselves OR of most porters. That will have to change sooner or
> Yep, but that means a bit of humility from their part first, and an
> aknowledgement of their mistake, as well as an explanation on how this came to
> be in correspondence of all the help they rejected from the arch porters part.
I would rather we just fix it. The egos here are too big for any apologies
from any side to show up, and I'd better get some work done that improve
things rather than wait for Hel to freeze over :-) As long as the issues
raised with the proposal are addressed, that will be enough IMO. For now,
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot