Re: pythonX.Y maintenance team
On Friday, April 13, 2012 08:37:26 AM Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 23:35, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:04:33 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 22:50, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:20:04 PM Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >> >> To give a (fresh) example and what I meant above, you can try to
> >> >> answer this provocative question: Why Ubuntu has Python 2.7.3 since
> >> >> more than 2 days (even before it was publicly announced) while Debian
> >> >> is still stuck with a RC, FingTBFS on 4 archs version?
> >> >
> >> > Probably because Ubuntu is a day before final freeze for a release. I
> >> > virtually always upload stuff to Debian first where I'm the Debian
> >> > maintainer for a package, but there are legitimate reasons why in some
> >> > cases that's not the best way to go about it.
> >>
> >> exactly my point as in "that usually means there are different priorities
> >> when working for Debian over Ubuntu"
> >>
> >> > We all get busy with $DAYJOB every now and then and that's OK.
> >>
> >> funny how in this case the dayjob overlaps the "hobby", so I guess one
> >> could have achieved the best for both distro with minimal effort (as
> >> the changelog for previous syncs suggest) but decided to just go with
> >> one only.
> >
> > It's not that simple. Depending on the timing of various processes in
> > Debian/Ubuntu there can be a substantial (as much as a day) delay from
> > Debian upload to when a package can be synced into Ubuntu. When you're
> > only two or three days from a freeze, that can be unacceptable.
>
> I see; another point for having Debian maintainers whose main interest
> is making Debian the best distro.
That or people in Debian with just a slight bit of perspective that it's not
the only thing that matters. There are good and valid reasons to upload to
Ubuntu first. There are times when people get busy with work. There are also
times when the only 'solution' available is a short term hack that's needed
for Ubuntu's time based release schedule that isn't appropriate to Debian's
approach of doing things right and releasing when ready.
I'm not saying that there have never been delays that weren't ideal, but I
think in this case you're trying to make a point out of a small matter.
> > FWIW, I saw him discussing it on #debian-release at least briefly today.
>
> well, he was asked (sorry, I don't have that line of log here) when
> python will start building again, and the only reply was
>
> <doko> jcristau, sure, just disabling the tests ... but please ask
> port maintainers as well. I now got some feedback from kfreebsd
> porters
>
> (still on the line of
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python2.7/news/20120405T171854Z.html
> where FTBFS are "delegated" to porters but without notifying them
> first)
>
> but he was also pointed out that:
>
> <pinotree> doko: i guess the one to ask, as maintainer of said source,
> should be you
>
> then nothing else; not exactly a discussion, but oh well
>
> > BTW, it is just this kind of nitpicking that I think would make a
> > *defaults
> > team with doko and an interpreter team with you problematic.
Yes. It wasn't a great interaction and the package should be fixed, but it's
also not quite the same thing as ignoring Debian.
> non sequitur: it doesn't show how python*-default <-> pythonX.Y
> interactions would be problematic, only that, IMO, pythonX.Y is poorly
> maintained in Debian, since nothing has changed on that side.
I think a good interaction between the two teams would be needed and I don't
think with you on one team and doko on the other it would happen. I may be
completely wrong about that, but that's what I think.
Scott K
Reply to: