Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental
On Monday, October 05, 2015 11:45:57 PM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
...
> >> It is also to be noted that mock is maintained by upstream OpenStack
> >> people (ie: Robert Collins), and therefore, should be released in Debian
> >> at the same time as other testing tools and the rest of OpenStack:
> >> testools, testscenarios, subunit, testrepository, and many more. So in
> >> the future, I'd advise to follow upstream release schedule. I would
> >> encourage, if you don't mind, to put mock into the PKG OpenStack team,
> >> because that's where it belongs. If we don't do that, and without being
> >> careful, then breakage is to be expected.
> >
> > I think this exhibits exactly the myopia others have complained about.
> > python-mock has over 200 reverse build-depends in the archive
> > (python3-mock
> > has almost a hundred more). It may be used by openstack and maintained by
> > someone who also works on openstack, but it is, by no means an openstack
> > thing.
>
> I'm surprised here by reading these numbers. How exactly do you show a
> package's reverse build dependency? "apt-rdepends -b -r" doesn't work...
> I remember I did it for mock though ... :(
The simplest way to do it that I know of is to use the reverse-depends script
in ubuntu-dev-tools (in Debian it works correctly for Debian) and do reverse-
depends -b [package].
> > python-mock was first uploaded to the Debian archive in 2009. I believe
> > openstack was started in 2010. Unless your theory of python-mock involves
> > time travel, I don't think it's possible to make python-mock appear
> > because of openstack.
>
> That's not the case. It just happens that Robert Collins
Robert's already explained this in detail. I'm not sure what you were about
to argue here, but the fact that you don't seem to be able to see Robert as
anything other than an OpenStack developer is something I find confirms my
thoughts about where your focus is.
> >> In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this
> >> kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen.
> >> There's a set of packages, goals and results for which these
> >> distribution care about, so package updates aren't just uploaded blindly
> >> without first making sure there's no grave consequence. I wish we did
> >> the same. That's a way more important than respecting package ownership
> >> for uploading to Experimental when there's no other reverse dependency
> >> (and within a team ... glups!). I do see that this view isn't shared
> >> among the persons who were self-appointed as "team leaders" though. In
> >> the long term, this lowers a lot the overall quality of Debian, so my
> >> hope is that everyone realizes what's important.
> >
> > I'm glad to hear other distributions are perfect.
>
> That's of course not what I wanted to say.
Then say what you want to say. "... this kinds of things don't happen." is
pretty unequivocal.
> > You knowingly ignored the team norms and clearly have no regrets and would
> > do it again.
>
> WHAT ? I mean ... WHAAAT ?!?
>
> Do I express myself so badly, that it leads to this? Never, ever, I
> wrote something like this. So let me state it once and for all.
>
> 1/ I have already expressed regrets for this upload.
>
> 2/ This upload is a *mistake* because I checked too fast packages.d.o
> and saw "oh, DPMT, let's upload..." when I should have been more careful
> and really check for the actual fields (which were matching the "do not
> upload before ping" rule which I knew about, and not the "this is team
> maintained, go ahead..." as I thought it was by looking too fast).
>
> This is what made me say that writing this in a policy wont change
> anything: mistakes can still happen, no mater how big you write the
> rule. If we wrote "DPMT-do-not-upload" as maintainer, it'd be less prone
> to mistakes, as it'd appear as so in the pacakges.d.o page and
> everywhere else. The "trick" with uploads / maintainers field is just
> too confusing and error prone.
>
> 3/ No, I wouldn't do it again...
>
> Is it clear enough now? Re-read my past post, hopefully, you will
> realize that this what I wrote in the first place.
I hear what you are saying, but the fact that you continued this thread about
a mistake you made with unrelated attacks on other developers causes me to
doubt the sincerity of this.
> > Personally, even if the team was the maintainer of the package, I would
> > never just upload something without giving a ping to anyone who was
> > active as an uploader. I think it's just polite, even if it goes beyond
> > what the team strictly requires
>
> Which I did many times too.
Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when called on
it. If you'd just reacted with something like "Oops, made a mistake, I'll
revert it from svn and ask for it to be removed from experimental."
(fortunately for experimental we can do that) then this wouldn't have been a
big deal.
> >> Yes, probably what I did wasn't the correct social way to do it, since
> >> Sandro doesn't like it. But it was technically right to do so. I was
> >> also shocked to read that it was bad for me to "care more about
> >> OpenStack". Yes, of course I do. As this is what my employers pay me
> >> for. Also because I spend countless hours on it, every day. But does it
> >> mean I don't care about anything else in the archive, and don't mind
> >> breakage of other components? Certainly not. And I expect everyone to
> >> have respect for the Debian archive as a whole, do correct transitions
> >> and so on (yes, transitions... also for Python modules...).
> >
> > My impression based on your unwarranted hurry to upload python-networkx
> > and
> > your rant about python-mock is openstack is all you care about.
>
> Then you have a wrong impression. I was trying to express the exact same
> opposite thing: that I care for everything else, and that I expect
> everyone to do the same.
Technically right, but socially wrong is wrong. Reading that and what you
wrote above, does that help you understand why I question both your focus and
the sincerity of your expressions of regret.
> > I would really like it if instead of continuing to point fingers at other
> > people you would engage constructively.
>
> Scott, it is my belief that you have a very wrong opinion of who I am.
> What you wrote here, quoting me, shows the exact opposite of what I was
> trying to explain. I really fail to understand how we've came to that.
> Maybe you could try to re-read me again, trying to step in my shoes and
> try to see the world from my point of view, rather than just seeing
> black when I'm showing white?
The only thing I come up with is that you are so deep into your myopia that
you can't see it at all. I don't feel like you are intentionally engaging in
problematic behavior, but you're managing to none the less.
I think it's not nearly as white as you think it is (whether you mean for it
to be or not).
Scott K
Reply to: