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

Re: Unauthorised activity surrounding tbb package

On 19 January 2015 at 08:25, Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org> wrote:
> Steven,

Hi Mathieu,

> While being in terrible position to tell you what you should or should
> not do, I'd still suggest you to read:
> https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
> https://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/

Thanks, I will give these a read.

> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Steven Capper <steven.capper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mathieu,
>> I'm writing to express my increasing frustration at activities you've
>> instigated surrounding the tbb package that I maintain.
> The wording 'frustration' is very accurate, see below.
>> Over the Christmas period a bug report was raised:
>> #773359 "package tbb_4.2~20140122-4 FTBFS on mips and mipsel"
>> and answered by yourself:
>> "While I do understand the bug severity, our intention with Steve
>> Capper was to only support upstream arch."
> Right, I did comment on the bug, which felt as if I had impersonate
> you. Please also mention, this bug dates from Dec 17, and you've not
> made any comment on an RC bug since.
>> Whilst I may agree with your sentiments, we have had no discussion
>> over #773359; your response is effectively placing words in my mouth
>> and I will not tolerate that. To confound matters, I wasn't even CC'ed
>> in on the response!
> Again, this is very sorry, you did not include our private emails
> surrounding #752820 (Jun 26). If I remember correctly I've sent you
> multiple requests to have #752820 be fixed ASAP.
> With your Makefiles talent, you quickly closed (Aug 21), thanks again
> very much for this.
> However this is where I failed to understand the following: why didn't
> you request an unblock request at that point ? You knew Nov 5th was
> coming quickly.

That was a big mistake on my part.

>> Then there's:
>> #775506 "unblock: tbb/4.2~20140122-4"
>> and,
>> #775263 "RM: tbb [s390x mips mipsel] -- ANAIS; #768040"
>> Both of which have been raised without any discussion with me; I am
>> the maintainer for tbb!
> While I do agree with you that I should not have requested 775506
> without contacted you first. Here is a linearized history of what
> happen:
> 1)
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=775262
> RM: openvdb [mipsel sparc] -- ANAIS; #768040
> Before you were tbb maintainer I had to work on tbb fixed to have the
> openvdb test suite to work on POWER arch. Therefore I'd appreciate
> that only proper arches are available in tbb for any dependie package
> to work correctly (openvdb maintainer hat on).
> Now if you read this report, you'll think this is fairly dumb, since
> there is only two options: source upload which will go against #773359
> at some point. Or as clarified a couple of minutes ago:
> block 775262 by 775263
> 2)
> Which leads to 775263 you mentionned above as me stepping on your
> shoes. It happens to me a lot that a bug is reported in my package,
> but quickly discover that the bug is within an underlying package.
> This is *exactly* what happen, I even clarified this with my `block`
> request. I do believe this was my right for 775263 to do so.
>> The technical work is hard enough, and I'm new to Debian and am
>> learning the ropes still; it is not helpful to keep me in the dark
>> over my own package.
> This is exactly what was depicted in our private emails surrounding
> #752820, and this was also my *assomption* when you uploaded it in Aug
> but never requested an unblock request.
> So as said above, this is an incorrect assumption, and I should not
> have reported this unblock request. However as explained above this
> adds extra work for package depending on tbb since mips* and s390x are
> non-functional on this arches (IMHO, again I am not tbb maintainer,
> simply a tbb user)
>> I appreciate that you are trying to help, but I cannot maintain this
>> package whilst continually looking over my shoulder. I welcome help,
>> but I must insist that maintainer related tasks surrounding tbb are
>> discussed with me before they are instigated.
> Since our discussion about #752820, you've never ever mentionned this.
> So I (incorrectly) assumed you appreciated my help on bug triaging.

I'm happy for any help I can get, I just need to be CC'ed into
responses to bugs (the system didn't send me feedback) and a quick
heads-up if something does need doing and I've obviously not noticed.

>> [ I've CC'ed in debian-devel@lists.debian.org, as this is the second
>> time I've had to bring this sort of thing up with you. ].
> You've forgotten to mentionned I deeply appologized for this (I know
> you received the email, since you answered it).

You did apologise.

> I'd like to mention that so far I already had three legitimate unblock
> requests refused, so I would really appreciate if you could clarify
> your position on what arches should be available for tbb in jessie.
> In turn I understand that I should have stopped right after #775263,
> and never fill #775506 without your consent first. However as
> explained above, please clarify your position on tbb's arches, and
> mention you've never sent a single email to either me or the BTS about
> this.

I would like amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, powerpc, ppc64el to go in Jessie.
I am working on a new version of the package with more stringent
architectures defined; once uploaded, I will raise a bug to attempt to
get this into Jessie.

Having read my original email again, my language was overly abrasive
and harsh and I do apologise for that; you didn't deserve that.

To re-iterate; I do really value help, I just don't like surprises. I
would also be happy for you to be a co-maintainer (as long as I'm kept
in the loop).


Reply to: