Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
> With this message I am unilaterally declaring myself a maintainer of
> dpkg, and also declaring that Guillem is no longer a maintainer.
For the record, Ian has been removed from the "dpkg" group on Alioth and
we asked for an UNACCEPT of his upload, but I'm not sure it will be done
on time as none of the ftpmasters responded yet to my queries on IRC.
You can also read the log of #debian-dpkg since friday evening where I
spent two hours with him trying to find some compromise so that he can
contribute to dpkg. He just ignored everything we said and took this
Guillem has been working on the trigger integration this week and I told
so to Ian. But apparently he couldn't wait a few days more.
> I have spoken at length with Raphael on IRC. We had a productive
> conversation which convinced me that Raphael and I could have a
> productive working relationship. We were able to resolve our
> difference over future workflow, at least setting aside the fate of
> the triggers branch.
I don't know how you could ever expect me accepting your unilateral
removal of Guillem from the team.
> I have deleted the `master' branch ref for the moment to avoid anyone
> being subjected to an unpleasant accident. Around 48 hours from this
> message I intend to rename `master-new' to `master' to confirm the
Good choice, at least it's easy to clean up the mess now that you
can't commit any more.
>  Guillem persistently reintroducing errors, wholesale
> Here is an example of a big code change made by Guillem:
> However this is wrong as I explained here:
> I also emailed Guillem privately in August 2007 to ask that he stop
> this kind of thing.
> Guillem has persisted with exactly the same mistake. For example:
> It is one thing to make a coding mistake. Everyone makes mistakes.
> It is quite another to make a widespread change, without discussion,
> and which is even if it is correct and worthwhile only at best
> stylistically helpful. And then, after having been told that it was
> wrong, to continue requires a dogmatic belief in one's own
Can you tell us in which situations we have "#define NULL 0"
as opposed to "#define NULL (void*)0" ?
And why would the right fix be to revert all usage of NULL instead of,
say, add the proper define in a dpkg include file to override the bad
one that could come from... (I don't know see first question) ?
Don't you feel like that this argument is ridiculous to remove Guillem
from the team?
>  Reformatting changes
> Guillem has been engaging in a programme of reformatting and restyling
> of dpkg's code.
I agree that it's necessarily a good idea to reformat the code but you
brought up the subject (in an unpleasant way, as usual) and as AFAIK he
didn't push more stylistic changes since then.
>  Changes that have been blocked by Guillem:
> These are changes that I prepared or reviewed, and which have
> unaccountably not been included in mainline:
We still have about 60 patches in the BTS and only a tiny fraction comes
from you. If you could have been more pro-active, maybe more of your
patches would have been integrated but instead once the patch were ready
you disappeared and after X months you come back and complain
that we're blocking you.
And in fact, some of your changes have been merged already:
And more of your small changes would have been already integrated if you
didn't decide alone to make them depend on the prior integration of your
triggers branch (as you did for #432893).
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :