On Thursday 15 May 2008 16:47, Martin Uecker wrote: > > You mean less likely than once in 15 years? We're open to your > > suggestions. > > Something as bad as this might be rare, still, if something can be > improved, it should. > > Upstream complained about the extensive Debian patching. I think this > is a valid criticism. Of course things can be improved, probably always. I don't think that just one incident means that nothing must be changed, but I also contest that this incident in and of itself requires changes to be made. One incident just doesn't tell us much about the quality of Debian patches in general, either way. That's also what I dislike in Ben Laurie's blog post: he bases his conclusion on just this thing that indeed went horribly wrong, but is far from examplary for all patching that Debian, or distributions in general, do. I don't think he realises that far from all upstreams are as ideal as he seems to think. I welcome change and review of our processes, but taking one extreme incident as the base on which to draw conclusions seems not the wise thing to do. If you're interested in for example changing the level to which software is patched in Debian, I suggest to start with a representative review of what gets patched and why it's done. That would give more base to see whether the extensive patching is indeed excessive. cheers, Thijs
Attachment:
pgpIgDyHSebJF.pgp
Description: PGP signature