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

Re: please explain your changes to src:debian-edu

Hi Ole,

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 02:16:53PM +0100, Ole Streicher wrote:
> My mistake; I meant RFC822. According to
> https://blends.debian.org/blends/ch08.html#edittasksfiles
> the tasks files should be conform to that. There is a bug #840094, which
> has a lengthy discussion about exactly this problem. The mentioned
> commit is part of this process.

thanks. This should all go into debian/changelog.

I just discussed this issue with Petter over the table, where he gave
the missing context to me.

> > And btw, I'm also seriously not impressed by this commit needing FIVE
> > fixup commits, of which the last three were not even done by you.
> We had a discussion, and this was accompanied with the commits.

this discussion was on the blends list. For Debian Edu, this discussion
was not happening.

> I am also not sure, if you count correctly; at least I count only FOUR

well, there is a 5th commit missing, I still have a local one here,
which again does changes like this:

-Depends: education-tasks (= ${binary:Version})
+Depends: education-tasks (= ${source:Version}), ${misc:Depends}

which were lost again. 

> > And then it's still unclear why. Please explain. Else I'll just this.
> The tasks were buggy. Duplicated sections, mixed RFC822 and backslash
> style led to missing dependencies.

please explain in debian/changelog.

Explaining here is nice, but not enough.
> What concerns the freeze: The bug #840094 was open since six weeks
> basically without any response

uhm. thats a problem of blends-dev, not debian-edu.

> From that, I really don't understand your frustration.

let me try again:

a.) incomplete changes, needing 4-5 fixup commits
b.) with a nonsense commit message ("rfc834")
c.) no debian/changelog entry
d.) a+b+c together: broken without explaination!
e.) without any discussion on the debian-edu list (which is this
packages maintenance list)

You might also add "f.) without a bug report" (referred).

Do you understand my frustration now?

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain this now. Now this makes a
lot more sense. (And I surely always accept people do make mistakes, at
least I do mistakes all the time ;)

Now if we can get sensible debian/changelog entries for this change,
everything is fine. Just that please either you or Petter write these
entries, cause you know best how to describe these changes. 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: