Re: Need for launchpad
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:44:01AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I think this is not quite true. In any case, my recollection was that
> the bad cooperation was a two-way street, with you being extremely
> reluctant to acknowledge the concerns and needs of distributions, and
> on the other side, distributions disregarding your requests about how
> the package should be modified or installed.
If that means I wasn't ready to accept a patch which *wasn't* *ready*
*yet*, and people went ahead and installed a patch which I rejected is
evidence of my "relectant to acknowledge the concerns and needs of
distributions", maybe. When Debian users started having their
filesystems getting corrupted, it was proved that I was right, didn't
it?
> > So if that's our formal distribution of power between our upstreams
> > and our Debian Developers, why are we complaining about how Ubuntu
> > treats us?
>
> I would be happy to agree that Debian did not cooperate well with you
> with respect to the past history of e2fsprogs.
>
> Ubuntu claims to cooperate well with Debian. That's the problem.
Free speech is a b*tch, isn't it? Debian at the time claimed that
everything was being done in the interests of the users. It wasn't
true, but hey, the the only way we can counter free speech is with
more speech. So if we believe that Ubuntu is not cooperating well
with Debian, then Debian should issue a formal statement listing how
Ubuntu is failing to cooperate well with Debian. Of course, how the
press release is worded will be critical in determining how people
outside of Debian will perceive us as a result.
- Ted
Reply to: