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

Re: failure to communicate

On 04/06/2013 12:16 AM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> Le vendredi, 5 avril 2013 17.52:19, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>> On 04/05/2013 07:59 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>>> And all of these features will only land for the next cycle
>>> with a release in ~= 2 years time.
>> I really hope that it wont be the case. That it doesn't go into
>> Debian 7.0.0, I would understand, but at least, we need it
>> for a point release.
> Are you seriously arguing in favour of pushing a behavioural change into a 
> stable point release? I doubt the stable release team would accept that, but 
> I'm not under their hats.

I've wrote that we should at least address the issue, in a way
or another, through the next point release if that is safer.

But, are you seriously proposing that we leave the issue as-is ???

>> And at least, we need things written in the release notes about it, if not a
>> message in the installer itself (Christian, don't kill me... ;).
> I disagree. It has worked that way for a long time (and many releases in that 
> timeframe), so it is probably not "that" broken.

Well, at least *I* didn't know it was broken (yes, you read
well: BROKEN !!!), and I was quite shocked to read it, Knowing
that absolutely nothing gives you clues about it is equally
shocking. In fact, I saw that strange behaviors, and couldn't
explain it. We are talking about someone who has been using
Debian for 10 years. Now, think about someone who is a new comer...

> I'm not saying the bug isn't valid of course, just that it's severity is IMHO 
> correct.
>> Could we stop the winning and have this bug fixed please,
>> or the patch rejected (with a valid motivation)?
> Could we stop the useless bikeshedding and have Wheezy released please?

Sure. And let's add the fix for the next point release if
everyone think it's not a good idea to fix it right now
(though it's quite a shame we can't).
That's all I'm saying.

> As you know, d-i is critically low on manpower.

Yes, I know. And the patch author is also right to tell that
refusing contribution isn't a good idea to address this lack
of manpower.

As much as I don't agree with his tone, I do agree with
the arguments.

> You want that bug fixed? Great: test the patch, document your tests, upload to 
> experimental with the patch, gather feedback, get involved, etc. For a fix to 
> land in Wheezy, this should have happened 8 months ago.

Do you believe the legend that d-i was frozen 8 months
ago? I don't... :D

(only half joking here...)

> Now is the time to 
> release Wheezy, not the time to add cosmetic and disruptive fixes to it.

I don't agree it is cosmetic. I'm not sure it's disruptive.

> (And 
> again, I think the changes are probably worthwhile, it's only the timing which 
> is wrong.)
Then make your case for the next point release, not
for Jessie, please !


Reply to: