Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 19:54 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu: > Em Qua, 2006-01-11 às 14:36 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG escreveu: > > Gustavo Franco <gustavorfranco@gmail.com> writes: > > > It was already discussed[0], and there's no consensus on this idea of > > > "every Ubuntu changeset, a patch in Debian BTS" between DDs. > > Right. I want Ubuntu to exercise judgment, and not just give a big > > pile of patches, some of which are Debian-relevant and some of which > > are not. Think, for example, of the normal way a Debian developer > > should interact with upstream. > > This is exactly the point, what can I do with a patch if I don't know > why it's there? Which problem is it trying to address (I know, I can > read the patch and guess, but WTF), and why such solution was adopted... > Everytime I submit a patch, I also submit this reasoning... That's sometimes documented in the changelog. I benefited quite a lot from the ubuntu patches for gksu, and I've worked quite nicely with seb128 and mvo on issues like this one and update-manager. Now, I cannot tell if Canonical is claiming more than it is doing, and I do have my concerns about some of their decisions and ways of working; I'd just like to point out that cooperation with an 'external' entity has never been as intense and helpful as it is being with Canonical/Ubuntu. I mostly agree with Gustavo Franco on this issue: we should try to reach them and tell them what our needs and wishes are, and estabilish links where possible. See you, -- kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov> Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E9?= uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente