Re: Being part of a community and behaving
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 05:11:47PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > I would, for example, have classified the discussions / arguments in the
> > "systemd-sysv | systemd-shim" bug ...
> I was really confused that this needed to go to the TC; from what I
> could tell, it had no downside systems using systemd, and it made
> things better on non-systemd systems. What was the downside of making
> the change, and why did it have to go to the TC instead of the
> maintainer simply accepting the patch?
Reading through the bug log, I saw the following complaint from Michael
biebl (one of the systemd maintainers), dated 6th Sept:
"Steve, as long as bugs like [1] are not fixed in systemd-shim, I'm not
going to make it the first alternative. Installing a half-broken logind
whould be a disservice to our users."
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746578#27
The next mail in the bug log is Ian referring the bug to the tech ctte
on 17th Sept; that was followed by some discussion over the next few
days (18th, 19th, 23rd Sept). Ian proposed a resolution to overrule
the systemd maintainers on the 1st of Nov, and called for a vote on the
5th of Nov. (For context, the GR vote was called for on the 2nd of Nov
with the CFV going out on the 4th; the jessie freeze was announced at
the end of the 5th)
The bug referenced as "[1]" above was #756076 which was set as grave on
18th September, with a fix developed upstream on the 5th Nov, which was
then uploaded to Debian on the same day (by Martin Pitt):
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756076#56
https://github.com/desrt/systemd-shim/commit/a8c45a19a87b8dcd55d451c3dd37e34eca291435
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756076#82
I assume that RC bug was one blocker from the systemd maintainers'
POV, but that bug doesn't seem to have been considered by the technical
committee in its deliberations at all (at least in so far as Steve as
systemd-shim maintainer is distinct from Steve as tech-ctte member).
Cheers,
aj
Reply to: