Re: Need for launchpad
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> 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?
I think the feeling was that there was an awful lot of foot-dragging.
I certainly don't think you should install a patch which is incorrect!
But I think people's perception was that you thought it was perfectly
fine for e2fs to not support large filesystems, for an arbitrarily
long stretch of time. At least, my recollection was that there was
only "this patch isn't well thought out" and no "here is an approach
I'd like" or "this is a patch that does the job correctly."
> 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.
We don't need that, do we? We aren't *that* bothered by Ubuntu's
actions, so we don't need to start a war.
Reply to: