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

Re: DEP1: how to do an NMU

On 31/05/08 at 21:33 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > So far, you (in <200805301141.02910.elendil@planet.nl> and
> > <200805301718.06394.elendil@planet.nl>) and Charles Plessy
> > (<20080530100316.GD4794@kunpuu.plessy.org>,
> > <20080531152214.GA8808@kunpuu.plessy.org>) raised that concern.
> Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Frank Küster have been voicing what 
> are basically the same concerns.

One problem with such discussions is that it's easy to misread people's
mails, and attribute to them opinions that they don't have.  The only
mail from Frank Küster is
<87ej7ide0q.fsf@riesling.zuerich.kuesterei.ch>, and he doesn't really
say anything about that topic. Same with Manoj and Steve: they raised
concerns, but not about excluding team-maintained or actively-maintained
packages.  (I might have missed a mail while rescanning the thread, of

> > On the other hand, Bas Wijnen
> > (<20080530101631.GA15849@a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl>) and I disagreed
> > that a special consideration was needed. We can't just blindly add
> > every suggestion that people propose, because that would make other
> > people unhappy.
> Problem is you did not at the same time acknowledge that the concerns 
> themselves could be valid and that you were willing to discuss them 
> further and thus come to a different solution. This mail does do that.

Every concern is worth listening to, and we made several changes to the
DEP since the beginning of this discussion because of concerns that were
raised. But it's not black and white, especially with a topic where
different people might have had totally different experiences.

> [...]
> > If you started to propose wordings that would suit you, instead of
> > waiting for us to propose stuff by mind-reading, that would be a lot
> > easier to listen to you.
> The thing is that I basically agreed with suggestions (or at least with 
> the intentions behind them) from others which were  waved away. That is 
> not very motivating for writing other proposals.
> IMO you first have to reach agreement on the principle you want to put 
> into words when there is such a clear difference; proposing variations on 
> the same text is only going to lead to frustration. That is why I started 
> presenting use cases in which I feel NMUs to be less appropriate (and 
> explaining my reasons in more detail).

Discussing ideas and principles is a lot harder than discussing concrete
proposals. Also, when listing use cases, it's difficult for an outsider
to understand the underlying problem, and to generalize, which is
necessary before something can be put into dev-ref.

> From my perspective its your (plural) job as proposers/editors of the DEP 
> to put things together though.

Sure. I'm not asking for perfect patches. But the "I'd like to see
something like that in the DEP:" emails are a lot easier to answer than
those discussing ideas and principles, where it's difficult to determine
what the poster would exactly want to see changed.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: