On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 02:19:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 04:14:45PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Because this is being done *in lieu of* merging the triggers branch, with > > the result that the triggers branch becomes harder to merge afterwards.
> The triggers branch is already difficult to merge because it has numerous > unrelated changes. That's a fair criticism, but I don't think it changes the fact that making style changes while there's a major branch merge outstanding is precisely the wrong thing to be doing, because it directly impedes merging and causes more work even if everyone agrees that the style changes are correct. > > I agree with Ian that this is a bad thing. I can't fathom why Guillem is > > making changes like this while the triggers merge is outstanding, and I > > agree with Ian that it should stop. > From at least August last year, the triggers branch has had significant > stylistic changes compared to the dpkg codebase. If this means style changes to existing code, I agree that this is bad. But two wrongs don't make a right. If the facts are shown to support this statement, it may be appropriate to censure both parties. But a "preliminary injunction" would still be an appropriate response to actions that are actively harming the merge of a feature that's important to Debian, would it not? > http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2007/08/msg00014.html It's not clear to me that these are stylistic *changes*, which to me implies that the style of existing code has been altered, as opposed to style differences and a request that people not complicate later merging by mixing style and code changes in connection with this branch. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
