Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> > (this isn't the case, remotely) or that I have to go through huge
> > flamewars fairly regularly about release oriented matters [2]. Now,
> > maybe that's just a minority thing, or maybe it's just indicative of
> > the project as a whole at the moment, but it's not helpful for me to be
> > feeling nervous about raising these matters, least of all when *more*
> > transparency and communication is what we're aiming for.
>
> Quality of transparency and communication have been my only complaints
> with you as RM. I remember a few weeks when I just could not get your
> attention about a base-config bug, could never get in touch with you on
> irc and email was not answered. As long as you're aiming to improve
> those, I for one cannot complain. Please ignore petty politicking.
In my opinion transparency was the main problem over the last months but
I was hoping that
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2002/debian-devel-announce-200206/msg00003.html
was addressing this. While I really accept the fact that transparency
costs time and thus will delay the release more and more I can not accept
the fact beeing ignored even to a mail you promissed to
"which should get you a much better response than such mails to
me have been getting over the past month."
I admitted several times that the packages I was talking in several mails to
you are not really important for the main project. They had to just be fixed
to ensure *upgrade* from potato which required a name change and the usual
delay for this case. This delay caused a complete removal from woody which
is really not dramatic for these special packages - but the problem that
fixing a bug to ensure upgradability has the effect that it is not
upgradable at all is not acceptable. We should learn from this unimportant
case that there is a real problem which is caused by missing transparency.
I admit that there are people which do an amount of work which does not
allow the normal responsiveness to mail. But I never faced to be ignored
in the past and I can't cope with ignorance if I am pointing to a problem.
The fact is that there are packages missing from woody which were contained
in potato. The BTS leaves no trace about any bug of the package and there
is no single bit of documentation about this fact and this really sucks.
If I would have recived an answer from RM: "Sorry this problem is unimportant/
irrelevant/..." I could have set up an archive of those packages under
people.debian.org and write a bit of documentation for those small number
of people. Not the best solution but would be completely appropriate
for all parties.
But I do not want to do any stupid fights via BTS and file bug reports
against "project" or anything else which would eat at least my time and
perhaps the nerves of some other people.
I just looking for a solution for two items:
1. How to handle those silently removed packages?
2. How to ensure that we were not faced to those problems for
further releases?
Kind regards and thanks to all for their efforts to release woody while
I had nice vacations in France ;-)
Andreas.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: