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

Re: buildd administration

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:22AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> It got proposed because no one was able to give correct explanations
> about why it hadn't been included. 

Heh. I'm almost morbidly curious enough to ask what you think the
"correct" explanation of why it hasn't been included is, except that,
well, I'm not.

For those playing along at home, Martin replied to Josselin's query at
the time with his DPL hat on:


Josselin's reaction to that explanation, which remains completely
correct as far as it goes (though perhaps focussing too much on the
"write a policy") is pretty much why I don't think explanations are a
particularly useful part of addressing these controversies.

> I still believe it was a mistake to release without amd64. 

We didn't release without amd64; the sarge release for amd64 is on

> (Actually, I was already told I'm complaining too much about things
> going wrong and never telling people when they are doing a great job.
> But if I had to shout it loud whenever I think someone does a great job,
> it would suck all my time.)

A far better idea, in my experience, is to use all the instances of people
doing a good job as support for the proposition "when bad things happen,
there's probably a good reason for it because these are good, honest,
hard working colleagues of mine".


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: