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

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

On Wednesday 18 January 2006 21:51, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 
> > syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian
> > regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull
> > by Debian (in most cases)
> I am pleased to report to all who were confused or offended by the
> ambiguities in these quotations that Mark has clarified them both in the
> wiki already.


> > Considere the following:
> > - right now there are no Ubuntu changes to my package
> > - if Ubuntu suddenly does change my package for whatever reason,
> > there's absolutely no way I'll suddenly know to go check the patch
> > page.
> The PTS already contains this information; if you want asynchronous
> notification, that should be easy to arrange within the PTS.

right, that solves part of it.

BUT this still doesn't help with the having multiple logical changes (most 
of which might not apply) in a single patch (an example of which was 
detailed earlier in this subthread) Problems I have with this:
- I don't know of any upstream that accepts patches like the one discussed.
  Let along does so routinely. So why is Debian expected to be different in
  this regard?
- After having looked over a new patch with the same/similar non-applicable
  changes a couple of times, and no (new) applicable changes people will,
  quite rightly IMHO, stop looking at the linked ubuntu patches, which is
  surely not what Ubuntu wants? (from comments I've seen in blogs and other 
  places, this is definately a major source of frustration on the side of

Providing 1 patch per logical change should be possible, assuming each 
logical change is made seperately. (Which should be the case most of the 
time I expect?) 
Has Ubuntu looked into this? If so what were the problems keeping this from 
happening? Is it completely impractical, is it being worked on, or ... ?
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: pgpQJY69KuLxb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: