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

Re: Debian Science Policy

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 27.01.2009, 11:26 -0800 schrieb Don Armstrong:
> > Since it wasn't discussed on -policy or -project or -science, it
> > quite clearly has domain relevance only for the debian-science
> > alioth project.[1]
> This might be clear for all those, who contribute to "Debian
> Science". It is not clear for people getting to know "Debian
> Science". For those the document IMO is misleading.

People's perceptions are often different from reality.[1] Changing
documents to avoid giving false impressions is useful, but doesn't
change the actual effect of the documentation, which is what I was
talking about.

> > I think everyone is in violent agreement with this; what's left is
> > the relatively minor concern of a misleading document, which can
> > best be dealt with by submitting a patch to change the proposed
> > document, instead of the continuation of this thread on this
> > mailing list.
> This was IMO the best place for the topic.

Sure, but the problem has now been identified and agreed upon. Fixing
it is what is left. [I probably won't say anything more in this
thread, but if you actually want the proposal fixed, you should send
in a patch; otherwise, don't expect someone else to do it.]

> > I, for one, am glad that people in the debian-science alioth
> > project are taking steps to adopt a consitent policy for the
> > packages that they happen to maintain as a group.
> To be honest: debian-science is probably the worst place for
> recommendations of packaging tools over other packaging tools,
> because here you will probably find the largest variety of workflows
> in the whole area of places, where scientific software packaging is
> done.

Different people have different workflows, but a team working on a set
of packages often requires a consistent set of workflows if only to
avoid introducing conflict. It's not as if creating alioth projects
was particularly difficult, even for maintaining a single package.

Don Armstrong

1: Some would argue that they're always different, but that's a bit
off topic.
A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless. 
 -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: