Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
On Sun, May 4, 2014 10:33, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140504 01:03]: >> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: >> > >> > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support >> > the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes >> > merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing >> > support without a compelling reason. >> >> Did the TC previously agree that we should support multiple init >> systems? As far as I know only a default was selected, and I'm >> not sure if something like that this was ever voted on or not. > > We agreed but didn't put that into the resolution, based on "this is > too obvious". Seems it wasn't. Don't you think that both Steve and yourself are generalizing a bit hastily, since there has just been a single incident to date? Thijs -- 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/7277e9dd22b1ad12065d4d84ddfb8201.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140504 01:03]: > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support > > the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes > > merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing > > support without a compelling reason. > > Did the TC previously agree that we should support multiple init > systems? As far as I know only a default was selected, and I'm > not sure if something like that this was ever voted on or not. We agreed but didn't put that into the resolution, based on "this is too obvious". Seems it wasn't. Andi -- 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/20140504083310.ga20...@mails.so.argh.org
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
2014-05-03 19:53 GMT+02:00 Ian Jackson :
> Thomas Goirand writes ("Bug#746715: Shocking read ..."):
>> I'm really stoned by reading this bug. Daniel is nicely proposing to
>> accept patches from Steve, and re-add support for Upstart, and he just
>> wrote that Steve could have just get in touch.
>
> This is backwards.
>
> If the maintainer had a problem with the patches, they should have
> explained the problem earlier. I think there is no excuse for the
> maintainer's behaviour in this case. The maintainer has even now,
> after being challenged, failed to come up with an explanation.
I absolutely disagree. The maintainer previously accepted a hackish
patch to solve an issue. Now, since systemd has been selected as
default and upstart was dropped by Ubuntu, he did what every good
maintainer should do and dropped the patch, because it didn't seem to
be needed anymore, and the justification for the hack went away. Now
that people came stating that the use-case for the patch is still
valid, the matter was discussed and the maintainer was open for
patch-reinclusion and discussion, and in the end an even better
solution was achieved.
So, nothing wrong here and I agree with Thomas.
> Under the circumstances I think the maintainer should at the very
> least have contacted the patch submitter before reverting the patch.
Indeed, that could have been done to improve that matter, but that
this hasn't been done is not immediately obvious from the changelog
entry you quoted. And really, the TC should not babysit people for
good behaviour of contacting patch submitters - this was just a minor
think in this case, and it has been dealt with.
> I think that the rapid escalation to the TC, to at the very least
> supervise the conversation, is entirely appropriate in this case. I'm
> glad to see that this conversation has now resulted in the maintainer
> agreeing to reinstate the patch.
Are you sure he wouldn't have accepted the changed without the TC? I
pretty much have the impression that the TC wasn't necessary at all
here...
> [...]
2014-05-04 1:03 GMT+02:00 Ian Jackson :
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#746715: Shocking read ..."):
>> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
>> > the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
>> > merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
>> > support without a compelling reason.
>>
>> Did the TC previously agree that we should support multiple init
>> systems? As far as I know only a default was selected, and I'm
>> not sure if something like that this was ever voted on or not.
>
> The TC has not formally expressed a view on this.
> [...]
Exactly! So even if he dropped the upstart stuff entirely, there
wouldn't have been something wrong from the perspective of the TC.
Only from your perspective. And IMO it's just fairt to assume good
faith that people will support the maximum amount of different
configuration options for their packages, as long as feasible.
Cheers,
Matthias
--
Debian Developer | Freedesktop-Developer
I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/
--
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/caknhny8tsveor+ayeyd9gwwomajckjbfedu1umfqotzoyud...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#746715: Shocking read ..."):
> On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
> > the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
> > merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
> > support without a compelling reason.
>
> Did the TC previously agree that we should support multiple init
> systems? As far as I know only a default was selected, and I'm
> not sure if something like that this was ever voted on or not.
The TC has not formally expressed a view on this.
Behaviour like we have seen here is precisely what I was trying to
forestall with the draft resolutions that my colleagues on the
committee voted down.
Ian.
--
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/21349.30147.847768.963...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 06:53:29PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support > the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes > merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing > support without a compelling reason. Did the TC previously agree that we should support multiple init systems? As far as I know only a default was selected, and I'm not sure if something like that this was ever voted on or not. Kurt -- 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/20140503230113.ga19...@roeckx.be
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
Thomas Goirand writes ("Bug#746715: Shocking read ..."):
> I'm really stoned by reading this bug. Daniel is nicely proposing to
> accept patches from Steve, and re-add support for Upstart, and he just
> wrote that Steve could have just get in touch.
This is backwards.
If the maintainer had a problem with the patches, they should have
explained the problem earlier. I think there is no excuse for the
maintainer's behaviour in this case. The maintainer has even now,
after being challenged, failed to come up with an explanation.
Under the circumstances I think the maintainer should at the very
least have contacted the patch submitter before reverting the patch.
I think that the rapid escalation to the TC, to at the very least
supervise the conversation, is entirely appropriate in this case. I'm
glad to see that this conversation has now resulted in the maintainer
agreeing to reinstate the patch.
Given that the propriety of escalation to the TC is disputed, I think
it would be worth saying the TC something explict about it. How about
something like:
A maintainer recently peremptorily removed support for upstart
from one of their packages.
The Technical Committee thanks Steve Langasek for bringing this
matter to our attention. We are pleased that the maintainer has
agreed to revert the disputed change.
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
the multiple available init systems in Debian. That includes
merging reasonable contributions, and not reverting existing
support without a compelling reason.
I would expect Steve to abstain on a resolution which mentions him by
name in this way.
Ian.
--
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/21349.11545.519993.11...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Bug#746715: Shocking read ...
I'm really stoned by reading this bug. Daniel is nicely proposing to accept patches from Steve, and re-add support for Upstart, and he just wrote that Steve could have just get in touch. - Why are we loosing time to discuss the timeline of uploads, to see if there was upstart support at some point or not? What's the point of doing this? - Why this bug isn't just closed, and the issue just discussed between Steve and Daniel, so that a technical solution can be found? Daniel seems to agree to have upstart support, so what are we discussing exactly in this bug? - Why are some people like Andreas making dangerous allusions to other maters that seem unrelated, with no reference? I don't think such gratuitous accusation this is welcome in this bug (or in fact, anywhere in Debian). Or is it just OK because this is Daniel that we're talking about? If so, that's unfair. If Daniel wrote: "Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now." probably that's what he felt (eg: that upstart is dead). He's probably just wrong about it, and we should "Assume good faith" (ref: our code of conduct). [And, by the way, I do agree that what the Debian policy proposes at 9.11.1 is an ugly hack, and that Upstart should know better...] We've just adopted a code of conduct, were we should "Be respectful", "Assume good faith", and "Be collaborative". I know Daniel well, and I believe he is a nice person, which is trying to do all of the above, and do what is technically right. It'd be nice if the persons interacting with him also tried to act in this way. For me, the next course of action is: - Close this bug - Let Steve and Daniel work out reintroduction of Upstart in his package - Have everyone calm down and stop useless finger pointing Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- 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/53651027.7070...@debian.org
