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

Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message

On 1/13/06, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:08:52PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > We can't decide how they need to "give us something MORE back" and
> > it's their problem?
> Whoever said they need to do that? They just need to stop bragging
> about shit they don't do. There's at least two ways to accomplish this.
> If they fail to contribute in a meaningful way, it just means more
> work for them (in trying to maintain a diverging fork). Hence, that's
> their problem. It's not really a problem for us.

We can't say that Canonical/Ubuntu isn't contributing back. They're,
as pointed out by some of us. e.g.: David said that Daniel helped him,
but if he did that in his workhours it's under Canonical bless.

It seems that the main problem is how they're handling the list of
patches. If they want to spread the word that they're contributing, it
seems that many of us want to be informed about the patches as we
inform upstreams and not as it's today.

I can't affirm if they're saying more than they're doing, but we are
for sure. I was the only trying to prepare a list of things that we
can ask them to change, and mdz (Ubuntu/Debian) tried to collect
feedback too. We want cooperation, it seems that they want too but
Debian by nature is a complicated project and Ubuntu will never
satisfy all our needs, even for just handling and reporting back some

With that in mind, it would be good to hear about some internal
discussion in Ubuntu camp too, maybe in the next online meeting or in
London. It will proof that they want to be something different than a
simple fork, as described by mako[0].

[0] = http://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html  (long)

Gustavo Franco

Reply to: