On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:28:44AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:20:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 05:54:07PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > I've merged Savage, fixed libGL's PICness, and it seems to build OK on > > > i386. I'm going to merge SiS and get a build run on all architectures > > > possible (i386 finished, powerpc is finishing); Branden, the Mesa stuff > > > is in your court, as I can't really pick either way. > > > > Then why did you? :( > > After spending some time waiting, with no reply. As I said, you waited less than 24 hours after placing the ball in my court before committing Michel Daenzer's (to my mind, hasty) proposal to branches/4.3.0/sid. That branch is no place for hasty decisions in the package reorganization department. That branch is much more like a parallel trunk than a conventional branch. Major reorganizations should either wait for the milestone you proposed or should happen on a branch. It's possible my recent xlibs-static-pic work should have taken place on a branch as well, so if my changes in that regard have caused disruption then my hands are dirty as well, and you'd be justified in calling me on it. > I'm happy to back this out and go back to working in p/d, if that is > your decree; or locally. My "decree" is mainly that we don't delegate decisions to other people and then retract such delegations by surprise within less than a day. If you're particularly enamored of the xfree86/mesa lib package issue, there are a few approaches you could take: 1) make a collaborative branch, e.g., branches/4.3.0/mesa-lib-reorg 2) do your work in people/daniel 3) do the work locally Given that package reorganizations are one of the most disruptive things that one can do to users (one should make sure that apt-get dist-upgrade and preferably apt-get upgrade can figure out what to do), I think the best of the above solutions is 1). Nevertheless, I do not challenge your right to work on this issue in a manner that is more "private" or implies greater "ownership" by you. I do object to those traits belonging to a zero-warning commit that's placed on branches/4.3.0/sid (or trunk/, for that matter) when other members of the XSF are interested in the subject, including me. -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he branden@debian.org | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
Attachment:
pgpQvA07VTcXS.pgp
Description: PGP signature