Re: Canonical's business model
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:17:55 -0200, Gustavo Franco
<gustavorfranco@gmail.com> said:
> I disagree with a pile of patches and as i said it would be better a
> revision control system and good log (and debian/changelog) entries.
How is a revision control system (BTW, all of my packages are
in a public repo on arch.debian.org) help much in the way of
providing feedback? The best way to work with upstreams is to provide
minimal patches that implement a feature, or fix a bug, and
preferably, each patch addressing one or few related issues.
Calling for revision control systems seems like a red
herring -- and is impractical, anyway, since getting upstream to all
use the same version control system is not going to work.
> We can use PTS (and we're doing already in a way) to be warned about
> new patches. I don't think Canonical will put money on judging by
> DDs, in the end it's up to us include or not the change.
Umm, every single patch in a downstream repo, all jumbled up
with other changes, is not much use. I would never subject my
upstreams to it -- I submit specific, minimal patches, one feature at
a time, to upstream, since that makes it more likely to be
integrated.
> If they want to promote that they give us something back their
> reponsability is keep things more organized (for DDs and NMs) and
> publish somewhere what exactly they're giving back (for the
> community), IMHO. Does it mean that they're not contributing? No,
> they're believe in me. We just need to do our homework, and inform
> them that we can do the things in a better way.
That is just talk. Actually doing something that establishes
the feed back channel would be laudable, mere talk isn't worth spit.
manoj
--
Now is the time for all good men to come to. Walt Kelly
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: