On Friday 13 January 2006 16:27, Thomas Hood wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> > I can't see how putting up patches on a Web site is better than
> > (or even as good as) filing bug reports.
>
> The web site requires less labor to maintain than hundreds of bug
> reports.
for Ubuntu that's true, for the Debian maintainer it's not
> However, if a particular Debian Developer
> feels motivated to improve his package then he'd be well advised to
> examine what Ubuntu has done to it.
I've seen comments from maintainers that tried this and stopped doing so
because it turned out to be more work then (re)doing things themself.
The number of such comments I've come acrosss would lead me to believe that
at the very least the ubuntu patch publishing needs (significant) work to
be usefull in the majority of cases. So at the moment I'd say the above
statement is false.
> Transfer of information requires two parties: a provider and a recipient.
> Ubuntu, the provider, has published its changes. The transfer can only
> be completed when the receiver is ready to receive, but this is not
> always the condition of Debian maintainers.
> So it is efficient if the transfer take place on the initiative of the
> latter. Once he or she is ready, he or she doesn't have to "hunt",
because the patches are all at a known location.
as documented experience by maintainers who've tried that shows, this is
inefficient enough that reimplementing is mostly faster (and definately
more attractive, as it involves less drudgework)
-> ubuntu needs to improve efficiency _for_debian_maintainers_ if it wants
them to use their patches (if it doesn't that's fine, though not ideal,
from a Debian perspective)
> > Ah, here we come to the heart of the problem: "when they have been
> > approached", this clearly points to the fact that the initiative
> > for synchronization between ubuntu and debian lies with Debian not
> > Ubuntu (by and large, some exceptions have been mentioned).
>
> Right.
>
> > In the mean while Ubuntu proudly calls "ubuntu gives things back",
> > whereas in reality we mostly have a situation of "ubuntu will help
> > debian maintainers that want to take things back"
>
> I don't see a profound difference between "helping to take" and "giving".
> Perhaps what you want is "giving on a silver platter"?
the difference is the one between push and pull, i.e. were the initiative
lies. And Ubuntu is claiming it's pushing things where it's not.
-> Ubuntu not pushing things is just ducky in itself.
-> Ubuntu doing so while sayingthey are is _not_ okay (and that's the
impression a lot DD's seem to have right now)
> > -> It's this misrepresentation of where (most of) the initiative lies
> > which pisses people off.
>
> I think that people are pissed off for other reasons. (But I admit
> that I can only speculate. I can't read people's hearts and minds.)
>
> Suppose Ubuntu were to cease claiming[0] that it gives back to Debian.
> Would everyone be happy then?
I'm pretty sure people would be happier with one of the following:
- Ubuntu actually doing what it's claiming (i.e. pushing changes to debian)
- Ubuntu stop the claiming
take your pick.
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpQJjseJAfP6.pgp
Description: PGP signature