On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:54:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In addition, I would point out that your method of "supporting" the
> package amounts to documenting its inadequacy and then doing nothing.
No, the issue is one of resolving RC issues: in this case by:
(a) seeing if the FTBFS can be fixed immediately, and finding it can't
(b) documenting (this is the transparent bit, so pay attention) that
fact by not having s390 incorrectly listed as a supported arch in
the source and ensuring it does not incorrectly indicate a known
broken build is successful as it did in the past
(c) informing ftpmaster that the build currently in the archive is
broken by filing a bug requesting the broken build be removed
(you know, communicating with people)
(d) downgrading the bug so that it is not incorrectly listed as
a RC issue that the RM and QA teams have to attend to
(e) as maintainer, work with upstream and porters to fix the
downgraded but still open bug we were just talking about
I'm sorry that you think important bugs equate to "doing nothing". But
either way, this is the way things are done, it's not something you get to
"disagree" with.
Since this point obviously needs to be made clearer, I guess it's time
to have some more rounds of removing packages that have long outstanding
RC bugs. I guess I'll coordinate with the RM team to do this sometime
over Christmas/New Year.
> (Actually, you have six open RC bugs, because you "maintain" packages
> by ignoring them and relying on others to fix your bugs for you, and
> then not acknowleding the NMUs. I fail to see how this is better.)
There is nothing wrong with NMUs. Honestly, if you fail to see how a
bug fixed in an NMU is better than an open RC bug and a package in the
archive that doesn't work at all, I don't understand how you passed n-m.
> 6) Answer even unfriendly questions from a fellow developer who
> doesn't even care about the particular issue.
Ah, "unfriendly", "doesn't even care". There we go.
As it happens I do care about that bug, as it's an RC issue that stops
people from using the package and makes both quality assurance and the
release process harder.
> > Given your apparent discomfort with that question, perhaps you'd care
> > to consider how much more "hostile and uncomprehending" it might seem
> > if instead of making the question as part of a conversation between us,
> > I'd instead posted to d-d-a about it, or simply raised it as a general
> > conversation piece about how people in your position should be reviewed
> > for replacement as a matter of urgency.
> If someone believes that they would do a better job maintaining scm,
> I'm entirely happy to hand over maintenance of it. Are you
> volunteering?
Somehow I didn't think you'd care to consider it.
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature