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

Re: DMUP violated? / Proposal: devel/website/using_cvs.wml

Hello list!

On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 01:41:51PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Denis Barbier <barbier@linuxfr.org> [2004-09-04 12:32]:
> > On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote:
> >> Unfortunately things have already happened and as the very same person
> >> has used the term "abuse" please check whether I have violated the
> >> DMUP
> > [...]
> > 
> > This is how people work together in Debian: they believe that they have
> > to refer to documents instead of giving some rationale.  So yes,
> > changing all files with a single commit (or few ones) is much better,
> > but this is not a big deal.
>  Just to make it clear: I didn't refer to any document when I told him
> that I see it as an abuse of his commit permissions, to do that many
> commits through the whole webwml tree right after he got his access but
> not announce it anywhere at all.

There is the problem: you didn't refer me to anything in your intial
mail, you simply shouted and ordered me to stop it (I count 20 "!",
whole mail capitalized). And you ignored my question regarding any
such documentation in your second mail. When I asked for information
you told me instead to convince you not to revoke my write permission.

As this is indeed (at least for you, but AFAIK for several other
people as well) important to ask before that many commits it should be
documented. From <http://liw.iki.fi/liw/texts/debian-lessons>:
| Document important things. When people need to work together, they
| need to know how to take each other into consideration. Rules are
| needed for how packages are laid out so that they don't interfere with
| each other. If these rules aren't written down, they will have to be
| remembered by the community memory and word of mouth, both of which
| are unreliable.

>  After all I haven't thought at all about the DMUP or similar, but I
> guess Florian rather likes to piss me off instead of solving the
> problem.

You might (or might not) have noticed that all previous and all
following commits from me completely suit a better checkin style, so
for me the problem actually is solved. I proposed a patch so nothing
like this won't ever happen again. Please state what else you'd like
to see happen.

BTW, I authorize you to publish any mail I've sent to you, just in
case people might want to read up anything. As I sign my outgoing mail
people can easily make up their mind themselves...


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: