On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:07:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 07:56:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:26:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 09:34:11AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > I don' think it's a professional attitude if the RM has given up > > > > talking to the maintainer of xfree86. Please, Anthony, adjust your > > > > attitude, or ask someone else to be the RM. > > > Ah, what I love about Debian is just how _rewarding_ it is to contribute. > > Indeed; how do you suppose I felt today when I learned -- apparently > > long after the fact -- that the Release Manager had placed an embargo on > > his communications with me in that official capacity? > > Given that you hadn't noticed it, it seems hard to see how it's caused > any problems. Why, you'd almost think that having a team working on > release management issues was a good thing. I was thinking about raising the same point in reply to you! :) Let's review our original exchange: > > Yes, but as I noted in another message, this is increasingly a thing > > of the *past*, as you seem to have observed. > > How sure are you that's not just because people have given up trying > to talk to you? Certainly, as RM I've had to keep all the X related > stuff dealt with by other people, or not dealt with at all, lest minor > issues spiral completely out of control again, as happened last release > for Bug#97671. So I have a few questions for you: 1) Is there anything that has gone "not dealt with at all", and if so, if it's "hard to see how it's caused any problems", what is the drawback here? 2) If something's a "minor issue", as you put it, is it really the province of the Release Manager? Can something be both minor *and* release-critical? 3) On or about 18 April 2002, according to an IRC transcript I posted to the bug report, you told me "Overfiend: nah, leave it 'til after woody now".[1] That we came to a mutual agreement about the actual urgency involved in resolving the bug seems clear. Is the discussion of related -- but fundamentally auxiliary -- issues such as the meanings of bug severities in the Debian BTS, really directly relevent to your role as Release Manager? 4) If the answer to 3) is "yes", can you please provide us with a list of other auxiliary issues developers would be wise not to discuss with you? That we came to mutual agreement almost 2 years ago about whether #97671 should be resolved for the release not only strikes me as an issue that did not "spiraling out of control", but also very solidly falls within my concept of "things of the *past*". Furthermore, I asked for assistance with this bug many times, and no one ever offered any. When I saw an upstream commit that enabled a clean and fix, I applied it, and the bug has been fixed -- after woody, as agreed, and before sarge, as implied.[2] In any event, I do indeed think it's a very good thing that you appointed a couple of deputies to help your manage the release of sarge. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the impact they had on your ability to do so successfully, once sarge is released. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=97671&msg=18 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=143825&msg=48 -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only branden@debian.org | outlaws will @goH7Ok=<q4fDj]Kz?. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature