Re: Consensus Call: Git Packaging Round 1
Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de>:
> On 2019-08-26 23:41, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > I don't think you're part of our consensus.
>
> Yes, that might be very true. But what you describe by
> "our consensus"
I'm not a fan of this phrasing by Sam. But he makes a very good
point: you have not answered any of the substantive reasons why people
might have problems with Gitlab MRs.
Taken together with the rest of your mail, it seems to me a bit like
you're complaining that people aren't listening (to you, or to some
silent majority) but you yourself don't seem to have listened very
well to the rest of the thread ?
> is the opinion of a few people who actually read this mailinglist
> regularily and consider to reply. I really hope that you do not
> consider this "consensus" as the opinion of the Debian project.
> It is the opinion of 10-20 random people, nothing more.
I'm not sure how else you would measure the rough consensus.
You'd prefer a GR ?
> The proper way to handle this would be to amend
> https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep14/
> and drive it forward.
The DEP process provides a framework for documenting proposed changes,
etc., but I'm not sure how a DEP proponent would judge consensus other
than with traditional methods such as a consensus call here on -devel.
> And therefore I see absolutely no reason why the developer
> reference should be changed based on this.
I'm confused. In your earlier message you were proposing that "3. If
a package is maintained on salsa, maintainers have to process merge
requests". That would be a change to the DR, presumably.
Now you are saying that no change should be made to the DR because
this mailing list is not a good place to judge rough consensus ?
I think Sam's proposed change would be to document in the DR that a
maintainer should handle change requests (including code
contributions) sent to the BTS. That would surely just be documenting
our existing norm. It seems to me that if you want to change a norm,
it is up to you to argue for it.
> Please remember that it should be easier and more fun to contribute
> to Debian. Keeping packaging in the stone age jsut because some
> people still live there is not what you should strive for.
Please avoid pejorative language like "stone age".
And please avoid describing workflows as obsolete when there are
people making cogent arguments why those established workflows are (at
least in some respects) better than newer ones.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: