On Tue, 06 May 2014, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: > > Yes, and I think it was wrong that the bug was closed by an upload to > > experimental instead of to unstable when there was nothing > > experimental about it. > > Daniel is just being extra careful, using experimental a bit more these > days, to avoid the more discontentment (I don't think there's the need > of explaining the background and history of his situation). It is my > opinion that it isn't a good idea to point finger at him for the extra > care to not break anything.
On the contrary, I believe there is much to be said for his use of experimental. He failed to update important packages in a timely manner perusing experimental so that nobody could complain that there was no update. For instance, to date, we still don't have a newer syslinux in unstable while he was eager to push syslinux 5 in unstable during the former freeze (and I still don't agree with his migration plan given in #742836 that he closed twice without trying to see whether I agreed and whether I would not have additional advice...) The lxc package was severly out of date ever since the wheezy release up to a few weeks ago. Etc. </end of digressions> > to accept patches for them. So I'm all with you on that Steve. I just > regret the course of events, and the fact that Daniel looked > uncooperative, when I'm convinced that he is. I don't believe that he is intentionnally uncooperative but he makes it difficult to cooperate with him unless you agree with him on everything. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140506091109.ga21...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com