Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?
On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 15:14:16 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > [ Replying to this now, because it appears some people seem to think
> > mails that go unanswered are considered as accepted facts... ]
>
> Answering mails (when the other side is expecting an answer) is important
> when you want to assume the leadership on dpkg maintenance. It has been
> one of the major problems between us, and between you and the release
> team.
I've already said elsewhere why I didn't reply to the RT mail, and while
obviously I'm not them, I'd venture to say their (IMO unjustified) angry
reaction has been (partially) due to your campaign of fear mongering...
I did not find your previous preventive involvement and the later on
“escalation” to the DPL (as if the supposed weight of that role would
be useful somehow) to be appropriate, and I didn't find replying to a
mail supposedly aimed at “mediation”, when I had already been condemned,
worth the energy. Usually if I've nothing good to say, I'd rather not
say anything.
But then you both keep mischaracterizing the situation, at least the
“leader” has the partial excuse of being misinformed, OTOH you've been
directly involved and we have had personal discussions about all this,
so after this mail I'm not sure I can be bothered to repeat myself to
discuss this matter again any further, more so when your stance seems
to me to change between public and private communications.
> > If rushing things out and being sloppy or merging technically unsound
> > code is being a team player, then count me out. Also who do you think
> > would have had to cleanup that code afterwards anyway, if it had been
> > merged as it was at the time? (no one else has either been able or
> > willing to do it up to now...)
>
> 1/ Nobody rushed anything. The code has been available since march last
> year.
Obviously not for lack of trying. That paragraph was replying to what the
“leader” thinks should have happened. If it had been for you, the code
would had been merged long time ago, as it was, with all its problems...
> 2/ I have offered multiple times to fixup any problem that your code
> review would have unveiled. So it's not true to claim that all the
> responsibilities land on you. The real problem is that you have taken
> multiarch under your umbrella as your own pet project, completely
> ignoring me and my offers of help.
So one gets pressured, pestered, annoyed and as a consequence drained of
all fun and motivation, while somehow managing to keep going with a civil
tone, and is expected to still have to deal closely with the offender...
It's also interesteing how the reality about the “real problem” changed
with time...
> You have claimed numerous times that the branch was "unsound, buggy"
> (implying that I'm crappy coder, etc.) and I would not take offense on
> this if you were at the same time pointing out concreate real problems and
> if we could have a sane discussion on how to fix them.
I guess we have either not been looking at the same mailing list or
code base then, it's been a *fact*.
> But we had nothing like this... don't be surprised then if everybody
> is watching you. You have created yourself the conditions that lead
> to this pression on your shoulders. Working in the open and giving
> clear directives so that other can step in relieves that pression.
Oh, because that pressure, present already more than one year ago, did
not start instead from say, contractual obligations...
guillem
Reply to: