On 12-05-06 at 11:00pm, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > Le dimanche 6 mai 2012 21:49:11, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > Greetings, dear Debian developer, > > > > [replying via bugreport as I am not subscribed to tech-ctte@d.o] > > > > On 12-05-06 at 10:22am, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 03:07:27AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > > We have until now maintained Nodejs only in unstable because > > > > requests to rename axnode was met with either silence or refusal > > > > with the reasoning that axnode was more widely used in Debian > > > > than Nodejs. > > > > > > > > Obviously Nodejs is not widely used in Debian when initially > > > > packaged. So I've simply waited until it was really sensible to > > > > make such comparison of popularity among the users of Debian. > > > > Which seems to be the case now - even if still impaired by > > > > Nodejs only offered to our users of unstable and experimental > > > > Debian. > > > > > > I find this response from you *very* disappointing. It implies > > > that you knew that you had a responsibility to rename the Nodejs > > > binary according to Policy, but that rather than acting in a > > > timely manner to persuade upstream of the importance of renaming, > > > you decided to wait until momentum was on your side so that you > > > could have an outcome in your favor. > > > > No, that is not what it means. You are reading timings into it that > > I did not write there, and you are reading those timings wrong! > > I believe the writing was just misleading and Steve just misunderstood > it. I understood the same myself and I don't think I have any a priori > on this since I am not at all involved. I believe this feeling come > from the sentence "I've simply waiting until it was really sensible to > make such a comparison of popularity". > > So let's just assume it was a misunderstanding and go back to > technical argument in order to avoid this discussion to become too > heated. I am perfectly calm :-) > > > My understanding is that Node.js is a three-year-old project, and > > > that the namespace issue was first raised upstream at least a year > > > and a half ago. We would have been in a much better position to > > > resolve this in a manner that does right by our existing ham > > > community if you had lived up to your moral obligations as a > > > Debian developer *then* instead of letting the issue fester. > > > > Your moral obligation, before throwing accusations like that, is to > > at least investigate the issue, and ideally first asking nicely. ...but even when calm, I do not approve of a fellow developer patronizing me like that. If _that_ can be the last word on this little sidestep, I am fine that we all move on with the technical discussion. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature