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

Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?


On Sat, 03 Mar 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> 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...

There has been no such campaign. The only thing I did was to respond to
queries and give out the few information I had on the progress
of your "review".

Obviously I was not happy with the time it was taking, and I didn't
hide this. But you, as a person, were never a target and you shouldn't
act like a victim.

I'm sorry that you felt that way, it was certainly not my intention
to ruin your motivation.  The situation has been quite uneasy for me as
well, and despite what you might believe, I have not asked people to rally
against you.

I only tried to find a solution to get multiarch into Debian since
you have been taking so long and since you were voluntarily not letting me
help you. That's why I queried the tech-ctte earlier and that's also
why I asked the leader if he would be ready to mediate between us
in order to get clear rules on who can commit what.

> discuss this matter again any further, more so when your stance seems
> to me to change between public and private communications.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Feel free to elaborate if you think
it can help. I don't have much to hide, I believe I have been honest in
what I said.

> > 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...

Yes, if I were alone, it would have been merged much earlier. But at this
point in time, we'd have had 2 or 3 intermediary dpkg releases and the most
important issues would have been fixed. And the remaining design
differences would have not changed much IMO. We can just agree to disagree
on this.

But you should also note that I did not forcefully merge it, and this
despite several persons encouraging me to go ahead. Instead I did try
to work with you... but apparently trying to help you just ended up
increasing your blood pressure level. :-(

> > 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...

At least you recognise that you avoided interactions with me. Thank you.

> It's also interesteing how the reality about the “real problem” changed
> with time...

Indeed "the real problem" is probably inappropriate since we have multiple

[ snip the ad-hominem attack ]

> > 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...

That pressure was (supposed to be) on my shoulders. Yes I deliberately
kept you in the loop (and asked you to review the code as I produced it)
because (1) you expressed earlier some fears that I "stealed" you
multiarch (2) it was the right thing to do since you are the team leader
and your comments are always very valuable.

I have certainly responsibilities in how the situation evolved, but I
have always been willing to make efforts to improve the situation because
I believe that Debian is best served by having both of us maintaining dpkg
instead of only one of us. With your latest (very harsh) comments, I fear
that you got to the point where only one of us can stay... I hope that was
not the intent.

On my side, I am not rancorous and I have no problem continuing to work
with you if you can cope with me.

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help
liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/liberation/

Reply to: