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

Re: buildd administration

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 07:24:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> No, not in the least.  That's a good start, but for it to be an
> excellent start, it needs to work like the BTS, and be something that
> the relevant volunteers themselves read and pay attention to.

It doesn't actually need anyone else to pay attention to it; it just
needs to exist so people *can* pay attention to it.

> I'm not sure I understand.  Joey and James tried to *close*, which is
> not at all the same thing.  Indeed, my recollection was that they
> resisted any actual help, they insisted that their role was absolutely
> essential, and both refused to process applications and refused to let
> anyone else take over the work.  Finally James stopped, and things
> began to slowly improve.

Your recollection's mistaken. It's in the -private archives though, so
you can correct if if you like. Trivially though, you can note simply
from public information that things only actually improved -- in that
people got processed again -- when James *started* again, which is the
exact opposite of your mischaracterisation above.

> >> This is an infantile and counterproductive attempt to
> >> maintain control and a sense of superiority.  
> > I don't believe this is the case. If you believe you know the people
> > involved better than I do, and your judgement is thus better informed,
> > you are, again, welcome to it.
> Actually, we don't know who the people are at all.  One cannot even
> find out the *names* of the people doing this work.

Sure you can -- at the very least you just need to check the signatures
of autobuilt packages. If you're too lazy to do that (and hey, who
isn't?) you can check the qualification pages on the wiki, which has
most of that information too.

> > (BTW, I see #335981 and #336371 haven't received a response since late
> > October; or has raptor been down that entire time, so that you haven't been
> > able to diagnose it further -- it certainly seems down now?)
> Upstream is working on #335981 and #336371.  In fact, scm has *never*
> supported s390; 

       scm |    5d9-4.1 |      unstable | s390

> when I took over maintenance of the package I opened
> the bugs so that it could be more effectively tracked.

RC bugs need to be *fixed*, not merely tracked.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: