Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time, > > like "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer." If I were I > > would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even > > say that they are using my packages directly. > > Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a > rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I > do, I'll attempt to explain. FWIW, Mark's statement is one that I flat out disagree with. I have no obligation or committment to Ubuntu, therefore I am not an Ubuntu developer. I appreciate his statement in the spirit I think he made it, but I don't appreciate people who take it and shove it down my throat to try to pretend that I have some committment to Ubuntu. > but I agree with it. I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the > same sense, Debian developers. I think that we probably have hundreds of upstreams who would react with everything from disbelief to anger if Debian claimed that as a blanket statement. Now, analog and procmeter's upstreams have on occasion read/subscribed to the Debian BTS, sent patches to it, etc, and I certianly would be happy to tell them I consider them to be in a sense Debian developers because of that. But as a blanket statement it just makes the term "Ubuntu|Debian developer" a no-op. > Most Debian maintainers have probably never interacted with Ubuntu, > and there's no reason that most of them should expect to. And yet we're all "Ubuntu developers", hmm? -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature