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

Re: Bug#625865: ITP: ocportal -- ocPortal is a Content Management System for building and maintaining a dynamic website

On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 13:56 -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> 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:

I was responding to someone who said I 'supported' inclusion of proposed

> > 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).

Yeah, sure. I agree. My mistake.

> > 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.

Yeah, good point. So it's not enough for packager to say he will be
responsive to problems?

> > 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?

As I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread, it's not kool to just say
'no', without stating why.

I'm lost there. What you mean about the mirror thing, and about the
sarcasm thing? Where did I use sarcasm?

Reply to: