Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 06:54:17 +1030 Ron wrote: > You then had the gall to angrily insist that while you thought he might > be a better maintainer than me, it was still my responsibility to do the > work to fix all the obvious things that others had missed in their fork > (which he

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

I just noticed I missed out responding to one of your queries in my reply. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Punit Agrawal wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Ian Jackson > wrote: >> Punit Agrawal writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Punit Agrawal writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package > a new upstream version"): >> In offline discussions with Wookey, we came to the realisation that >> reading the various bug

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Punit Agrawal writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > In offline discussions with Wookey, we came to the realisation that > reading the various bug reports (including this one) it is not very > clear how global (upstream) is structured, the

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > The TC had an IRC meeting yesterday [0], and I (was) volunteered to wrap up > the different outcome possibilities, which would help forming our opinions. > Not all these options are exclusive, or would need an actual

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Wookey writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > OK, as Punit and I have prepared a current 6.5.5 which would be a > candidate for a 'modern' release, and I think it's useful to have such > a version available for people to test and file bugs

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > E) the 'global' package is handed to other maintainer(s) > > This would imply: > > - overruling the 'global' maintainer's decision (§6.1.4, implies >3:1 majority in the TC

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On 2016-11-23 18:19 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > The TC had an IRC meeting yesterday [0], and I (was) volunteered to wrap up > the different outcome possibilities, which would help forming our opinions. > Not all these options are exclusive, or would need an actual TC decision. > > Here

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

The TC had an IRC meeting yesterday [0], and I (was) volunteered to wrap up the different outcome possibilities, which would help forming our opinions. Not all these options are exclusive, or would need an actual TC decision. Here we go: A) 'global' stays maintained as it currently is. This

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:16:34 +1030 Ron wrote: > If we run with your proposal, what are you actually suggesting we tell > the people who'd be upset by the loss of htags without notice in Stretch? > Because I don't really see how you've addressed that here. >  > AFAICS, there's

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On 2016-11-16 06:02 +1030, Ron wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 04:55:06PM +, Wookey wrote: > > On 2016-10-25 07:29 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, it worked fine in a test run I just did (on linux-4.9 rc 1), and > > > last time I used it, it also worked fine with the emacs

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

❦ 15 novembre 2016 21:32 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen  : > Vincent, would this be acceptable to you? My understanding of Ron's mail is the following: do nothing now and wait for Stretch release to see what version could be packaged. I am not thrilled by this option (but I rank it above

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:32:38 +0100 Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > I think this sounds quite reasonable, all in all. It gets us a newer > version (albeit not for stretch, but I see the points about changing > that so close to the freeze), it gives users some warning about htags > going

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Hi, apologies for the delay in responding here. ]] Ron […] > I'd really like to keep this to just one package, for the reasons > already given (though there's surely more if anyone still needs > even more). This sounds pretty reasonable to me. > I'd really like to avoid "surprising" anyone

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 04:55:06PM +, Wookey wrote: > On 2016-10-25 07:29 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > > FWIW, it worked fine in a test run I just did (on linux-4.9 rc 1), and > > last time I used it, it also worked fine with the emacs integration, so > > I don't recognise the crying

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On 2016-10-25 07:29 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Wei Liu > > > Gtags in Debian doesn't work with modern code base. Last time I tried > > (several > > years ago), it segfault'ed while trying to index Linux kernel. > > FWIW, it worked fine in a test run I just did (on linux-4.9 rc 1), and

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > It's ok, we get it. You've got an axe to grind, and boy are the sparks > flying off it thick and hot! My axe is the same one I often have in Technical Committee discussions. It is the axe of

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:56:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to > package a new upstream version"): > > I made this timeline to show how Ron thinks it is appropriate to deal > > with this package. > > > > Messages to

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:33:32 +1030 Ron wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:09:21PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > It seems you're only interested in impartial and non-partisan voices > > when they happen to back your position. I am impartial and non-partisan, > > and formed my

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > I made this timeline to show how Ron thinks it is appropriate to deal > with this package. > > Messages to #574947 and #816924, combined > Each # is one email > Each P is one

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:52:29PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new > > upstream version"): > > > I think you missed the bit

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:52:29PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new > upstream version"): > > I think you missed the bit about "comprehending the problem and building > > consensus on solutions" > > Somehow I missed the part

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > I think you missed the bit about "comprehending the problem and building > consensus on solutions" Somehow I missed the part where you helped contributors to "comprehend the problem" and enabled them

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:09:21PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Nov 07 2016, Ron wrote: > > > I've taken the time to repeat this all again now, because regardless > > of how it got here, I actually have some faith in the new face of the > > TC as a forum for building

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Nov 07 2016, Ron wrote: >> In my opinion, the fact that you had no time for this issue for multiple >> years, but are now able to send a large number of long emails about it >> to the ctte does not speak in your favor. > > I'm sorry, remind me again about where and what you

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

❦ 7 novembre 2016 16:45 +1030, Ron  : > I've always given time to anyone who took the time to understand and > showed an interest and willingness to try something new to improve > this. And it's clear that the person who gave the most recent (and > best) feedback to the

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 05:09:56PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Nov 06 2016, Ron wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:20:30AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > >> Ron writes: > >> > > >> > I can try to clarify that if there's a question in your mind that > >> >

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Nov 06 2016, Ron wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:20:30AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: >> Ron writes: >> > >> > I can try to clarify that if there's a question in your mind that >> > you don't think I touched on there. >> >> The question that remains is

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Note: this is written as an outsider who doesn't have any direct stake in the issue. On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 05:00:12 +1030 Ron wrote: > > And I think the latter is basically what the "just ship multiple > versions and hope the future gets clearer" option boils down to. > All it

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:20:30AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote: > Ron writes: > > > > I can try to clarify that if there's a question in your mind that > > you don't think I touched on there. > > The question that remains is what you actually intend to do. Nod. So far here, I've

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Ron writes: > Hi Marga, > > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Margarita Manterola wrote: >> > Philip Hands writes: >> > It seems like you are tempted to drop htags anyway now, so calling the >> > version 6 package 'global' and adding the global5 package

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Hi Marga, On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Margarita Manterola wrote: > > Philip Hands writes: > > It seems like you are tempted to drop htags anyway now, so calling the > > version 6 package 'global' and adding the global5 package to give people > > an escape route

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

> Philip Hands writes: > It seems like you are tempted to drop htags anyway now, so calling the > version 6 package 'global' and adding the global5 package to give people > an escape route seems like the right thing to do. > > That also makes it much easier to detect when people

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:03:40AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > Ron writes: > > ... > > That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like > > a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who > > might be upset by that - and we don't have a

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Wei Liu > >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:47:27 +1030 Ron wrote: >> [...] >> > That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like >> > a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Philip Hands writes: ... > How viable is it to have two conflicting packages: > > global5: continuing as you have it now >(perhaps with patches to make it work for recent use cases) > > global6: (with htags support removed) Ah, I see -- I had somehow got the

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Ron writes: ... > That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like > a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who > might be upset by that - and we don't have a clear idea of exactly > what we'd really gain elsewhere from that tradeoff,

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Ron wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 05:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> ❦ 22 octobre 2016 14:44 +1030, Ron : >> [...] > > Without repeating what I already said above about this option, we do > already have some

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

❦ 25 octobre 2016 07:33 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen  : >> * Specifically, failed to give clear and constructive directions to >>those willing to do the work; > > I disagree with those characterisations. He's asked for clarifications > on what is broken without anything resembling

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

]] Ian Jackson > So in summary, the maintainer has: > > * Not packaged the new upstream version due to concerns about a >feature which is not present in the current Debian version and >which could therefore be removed from a new-upstream-version upload >without causing a regression

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

]] Wei Liu > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:47:27 +1030 Ron wrote: > [...] > > That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like > > a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who > > might be upset by that - and we don't have a clear idea of

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

So in summary, the maintainer has: * Not packaged the new upstream version due to concerns about a feature which is not present in the current Debian version and which could therefore be removed from a new-upstream-version upload without causing a regression in Debian; * Explicitly

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:47:27 +1030 Ron wrote: [...] > That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like > a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who > might be upset by that - and we don't have a clear idea of exactly > what we'd really

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:48:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > Maybe the question we should ask is less «who/how many people use > > htags?» and more «what value does htags provide?». I'm no big fan of > > arbitrarily breaking people's workflows,

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 24 octobre 2016 12:48 -0500, Don Armstrong  : > > > [Also, I'd like to note that currently Punit has not participated in > > the CTTE bug, and the last comment on #574947 was in 2014, so I'm not > > convinced that we have an

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

❦ 24 octobre 2016 12:48 -0500, Don Armstrong  : > [Also, I'd like to note that currently Punit has not participated in > the CTTE bug, and the last comment on #574947 was in 2014, so I'm not > convinced that we have an alternative maintainer even if we were to > decide to change

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > Maybe the question we should ask is less «who/how many people use > htags?» and more «what value does htags provide?». I'm no big fan of > arbitrarily breaking people's workflows, which we might be the result > if we remove htags. It sure looks like

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 03:11:15PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to > package a new upstream version"): > > I'm leaning towards dropping htags, since that seems to have problems > > security-wise (the idea of generated CGIs don't

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > [Ron:] > > I'm appalled at the status quo. My concern is that we don't make > > that even worse with uninformed decisions. In the absence of good > > information, sometimes the best thing

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 08:48:53PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Ron > > > I'm appalled at the status quo. My concern is that we don't make > > that even worse with uninformed decisions. In the absence of good > > information, sometimes the best thing to do is be patient until > > more of

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

]] Ron > I'm appalled at the status quo. My concern is that we don't make > that even worse with uninformed decisions. In the absence of good > information, sometimes the best thing to do is be patient until > more of it arrives. I agree with this. On the other hand, waiting forever isn't

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

❦ 23 octobre 2016 19:53 +1030, Ron  : >> So, nothing will move on your side until I bring some proof that "nobody >> is interested in htags". Well, I won't bring any such proof either. > > That was a claim _you_ made in bringing this to the TC. Are you really > saying now that

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 09:55:43AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 23 octobre 2016 17:19 +1030, Ron  : > > If you're saying yes to the question I put above, then what I'm asking > > is: what real evidence can you show to back up your assertion that > > "nobody cares about

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

❦ 23 octobre 2016 17:19 +1030, Ron  : >> > So are you asking if we should package a version that has htags >> > removed instead of what we currently have? Because that's the >> > essential implication of "remove the offending CGI bit". >> >> Yes. I have asked first here: >>

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 05:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 22 octobre 2016 14:44 +1030, Ron  : > > > It seems fair to assume that you aren't seriously asking them to > > endorse the idea of chmod 777 as an acceptable interface for > > distro software - but that's what

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

❦ 22 octobre 2016 14:44 +1030, Ron  : > It seems fair to assume that you aren't seriously asking them to > endorse the idea of chmod 777 as an acceptable interface for > distro software - but that's what "force the new version into > the distro one way or another" actually

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:12:51 +0100, Wookey wrote: > Indeed. The current situation is that the existing version is so old > that it doesn't work properly with modern code any more, but the > maintainer has refused to do any of: > 1) upload a new package, I'm not "refusing to upload a new

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

On 2016-10-19 14:26 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Vincent Bernat writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to > package a new upstream version"): > > Ron Lee is the current maintainer and disagrees on some issues with > > upstream and therefore don't want to update to a more recent > >

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Vincent Bernat writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"): > Ron Lee is the current maintainer and disagrees on some issues with > upstream and therefore don't want to update to a more recent > version. See bug #574947: >

Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

Package: tech-ctte Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello, GNU Global is currently "freezed" in Debian at version 5.7.1 which is 8+ years old. Many improvements and bugs were fixed in more recent versions. Also, many frontends now expect a newer versions of