On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:53:20AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 27 août 2006 à 23:33 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > the questions of their utility likewise seems > > to have only been raised in private. I think you have tried to kill off > > these fields because you personally disapprove of using the control files in > > this manner. Why else would you have gone ahead with the implementation > > without ever raising the subject on this list so that people could try to > > *resolve* the problems with these fields, or discuss alternate solutions > > that would meet the needs of those wanting the fields, before dispensing > > with them? > > Because not only do I dislike this use of control files, but I also > dislike this "discuss policy first, code after" way of doing things. One > of the reasons for the python fiasco is that the crappy document that > was called "new policy" was written into stone before having even been > tried on a few packages. The best way to prove it was to write a better > implementation.
Fair point. The entire new policy and transition where way too hurried to start with which doesn't work when not everyone agrees. But maybe there's a lesson about this for the future. I can agree with your reasoning of trying out implementations, but it seems to me something to be done in experimental so that only packages who want to try it do so. The python-central package should have stayed in experimental during that time too obviously so that only when the new policy was agreed upon the helpers who comply with it are uploaded into unstable. But again, the tight timeframe made this complicated. Secondly it should be noted that communication didn't go too good either since people in favour of the P-V fields didn't realise not everyone was happy with it and thought it was fine to go ahead with introducing it to unstable. It also took ages before the list was informed of what did happen during the BOF (not having the video's right away didn't help) which made matters even more obscure. But it's a fair point to say that the "transition first, new policy later" principle should not have been changed as it is now seen that a new policy takes time, more time then there was for the transition. Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
