On 2018-04-17 12:27 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:49:36PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > > On 2018-04-17 13:15 +0800, Rolf Leggewie wrote: > > > > the ticket now does > > > serve a purpose in documenting publicly why there was no upload to > > > gjots2 in unstable over many years. The reason given is still valid, > > > that hasn't changed, no update needed there. It sums up the state of > > > gjots2 pretty well and thus for the sake of not spreading fake news let > > > me quote it here. > > > ----------- > > > > > Thank you for your report. There are ways in Debian to inform the > > > > maintainer automatically about new upstream releases (debian/watch). > > > > Specifically opening bug tickets about new upstream versions being > > > > available doesn't really help much. > > > > > I had had a look at the new upstream quite a while ago and found > > > > several bugs so I reported them upstream and held off releasing > > > > to Debian. > > > > > https://sourceforge.net/p/gjots2/bugs/ > > > Someone new to this can't tell from this message or that list of 20 bugs > > (none of which obvisouly have your name on), what it is about the > > package which is so buggy that a new version cannot be uploaded. > > > It would help if you actually explained the issue, or at least said > > which of those bugs were relevant. > > To what end? To the end of clear communication for people wondering what's going on > Are we then going to vote on whether Rolf's decision to defer > the new upstream releases was technically sound, before we will recognize as > valid his feelings of frustration that Debian's norms and policies were not > followed? No, it would just somewhat defuse the complaint that he appeared to be an absent maintainer. > Is our response to a complaint that a maintainer's rights[*] have > not been respected, to further punish the maintainer by collectively > usurping that position for ourselves? No, but if you've been clear about why the package is stuck at $4-year-old-version then a) someone is probably less likely to hijack it in the first place, and b) when someone does hijack it, and you complain and some people critise you (likely round here) you can point to your clear communication, and it is obvious to all that the hijackers have acted unreasonably (as opposed to it looking a bit 50:50 and everyone taking sides). I don't have a dog in this fight (I have never heard of any of these people or packages before). I was just expressing the impression I formed when Rolf claimed he'd been clear about why there had been no uploads for 4 years. I'm not suggesting that no-communication hijacking is OK. > But by my > reckoning, that means we should be trying to get our noses out rather than > sticking them further in. Possibly. Bit late for that if you ask me :-) Anyway. I'm going cycling for a week, so you are very unlikely to hear from me again on this matter, which, as you say, is probably a good thing. :-) Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature