Bug#754910: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Quoting Martin Steigerwald (Martin@lichtvoll.de):
> Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 18:23:38 schrieb Serge Hallyn:
> > Quoting Thomas Goirand (zigo@debian.org):
> > > Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
> > > Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
> > > at least surprising. It's also very surprising to see the package just
> >
> > As Daniel said we had an agreement. He was going to push the package. He
> > failed to do that, causing over a week's delay in straightening out the
> > non-systemd-upgrade mess. But instead of dropping in on that thread and
> > apologizing, he's complaining here.
>
> My experience is that is usually does not work expecting someone else to
> apologize, before having apologized oneself for the part of the behavior that
> contributed to the undesirable outcome.
>
> > I have enough to do that when I can delegate something to someone else I'm
> > happy and thankful to them. Last week I was hoping that would be the
> > situation here. Alas.
>
> Please talk to one another assuming everyone had good intentions.
>
> Daniel who maintains a ton of packages started to orphan them (see debian-
> devel-changes).
>
> I bet thats not the intended outcome.
>
> To me this conflict does not appear to be unsolvable. Please try to resolve it.
>
> A good step would be if one side starts to say "I am sorry" for some of their
> behavior that could have been rude. Usually both sides have their share in a
> conflict.
I *am* sorry that some of dba's time was likely wasted, especially since
it's obvious he has a shortage of it, maintaining quite a few packages.
For the same reason I fail to see how having one less package to
maintain could be anything but a relief.
The bug messages on orphan bugs say something along the lines of "not worth
it". If you're purely maintaining those packages to help out, and you feel
it is a strain time-wise, then how could not having to maintain another
package make you feel it's "not worth it".
Reply to: