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

Re: Bug#364609: O: Gnus -- A versatile News and mailing list reader for Emacsen.

On 24 Apr 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst uttered the following:

> On Mon, April 24, 2006 15:39, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> new upload _now_. I feel uncomfortable acceding to practices I
>> consider unethical, and I lack the motivation to fight the ftp
>> masters and the project on this issue.
> You use the term "unethical" to describe a difference in opinion
> about a source package name...?

        Rubbish. I do no such thing, and I'll thank you not to try and
 escalate this into a flamewar. The difference of opinion is merely
 that -- differing views held by different people.

        I consider the practice of creating a fake upstream version
 and keeping the same upstream name as misleading, and to do so
 knowingly is, in my view, unethical. There is a distinction.

> And the word "fight" when talking about what could be a reasonable
> technical discussion?

        The discussion happened with make, and earlier today. The
 positions are entrenched, adn the only recourse now is the tech ctte
 or a GR. If you think those are noght struggles, you are naive.

> You orphan the package publically as a matter of protest? This is
> hyperbolic and doesn't help the atmosphere on the lists.

        You are very silly, really, thinking this. Please grow up.

        I let the package go since my views and ethos are at odds with
 the archive maintenance (policies?) mechanisms, and since other
 people could ptentiually package the software and simultaneously meet
 the demands of the ftp-masters, it ill behooves me to try to hold on
 to a package I can't upload and let the users suffer.

> I don't think any difference of opinion about version numbering has
> something to do with ethics or fighting at all.

        Your lack of imagination is not my problem.

> There's an established practice of doing it "Jörg's way" and there's
> also some packages doing it "your way". If you don't get consensus
> on going through with your way, please accept that as a technical
> difference of opinion, not like some unjustice that has been done to
> you.

        This has nothing toi do with technical difficulties;
 technically, either way is feasible, and needs but a couple of lines
 of edits.

        This is about the hobgoblin of consistency, and what I
 consider misleading practice.

        Don't you have anything better to do than incite flames on
 topics you seem to have barely researched?

The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: