Re: Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website
We can stop CCing the bug# now, as this subthread is apparently no
longer about the ITP itself, but about "proper" conduct in discussing an
ITP.
On 05/06/2011 01:39 PM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Strange that you read 'support' into my responses.
By support, I hope you understand I mean the Debian project
infrastructure cost of adding another package to the archive, not user
support. That was my sole objection. Your statement here is what made me
jump in and speak up:
> It's always convenient to have a package in
> Debian, instead of hunting for it upstream. If it rots in Debian, then
> it can easily be removed again (or left in Unstable).
I strongly disagree. Every addition to the archive must be justified.
Your defense seemed implicitly to hinge on "zero cost" of adding a new
one (i.e. convenience trumps other concerns).
> Actually I have never
> even heard of the proposed package, but that's not the point. I even
> mentioned that if the package sucketh (if the guy proposing it proves
> unreliable), then it can either remain in Unstable or be removed.
That's putting the quality control on the wrong end. Nobody gets to
spend our time keeping a package in the archive as a trial of whether
it's good or not. We need to justify its inclusion first.
> And no, you should fault others for expressing their dissent in this
> unproductive manner.
I should? Or maybe you should read it for what it clearly is, a blunt
"minus one" vote due to the technology it's based on. And while you
write your sarcasm-tinged replies calling down other developers for
using the wrong tone, why don't you look in the mirror?
Ben
Reply to: