Re: Bug#1007717: Updated draft resolution

2022-06-07 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Tue 10 May 2022 at 05:29pm -07, Sean Whitton wrote: > At today's ctte meeting we considered whether we can start a vote on > this, but two committee members were missing, and someone else at the > meeting reported that they hadn't yet been able to spend enough time > thinking through th

Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version"

2022-06-07 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Tue 07 Jun 2022 at 11:26am +01, Ian Jackson wrote: > In this case I would like to suggest that progress would be better > served by trying to unblock a better source format that (i) has some > kind of delta representation (ii) does not put a > needing-to-be-maintained copy of the delta

Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version"

2022-06-07 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Tue 07 Jun 2022 at 09:31am +02, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > A middle ground between (4) and (4b) could be to discourage the use of > 1.0-with-diff in circumstances where it is not justified. Something > like: > > 4c. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which > 1.0-with-dif

Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version"

2022-06-07 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Tue 07 Jun 2022 at 08:19pm +02, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Please keep in mind that this is about trade-offs. It is a question of > how we value "package ownership". If we favour the strong ownership > approach that Debian used for a long time, then yes accommodating the > needs of maintain

Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version"

2022-06-07 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi Sean, On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 11:08:48PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > I think this argument needs to be made more precise -- we should be > clearer about why this particular un-uniformity is bad. I don't think > the issue for new contributors is persuasive enough, as new contributors > can mos

Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version"

2022-06-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Christoph Berg writes ("Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version""): > Re: Lucas Nussbaum > > 4c. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which > > 1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particular source package, > > including,

Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version"

2022-06-07 Thread Ian Jackson
Helmut Grohne writes ("Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version""): > What would you think about adding an alternative option 4? > > 4b. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which > 1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particul

Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version"

2022-06-07 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Lucas Nussbaum > A middle ground between (4) and (4b) could be to discourage the use of > 1.0-with-diff in circumstances where it is not justified. Something > like: > > 4c. We believe that there are indeed circumstances in which > 1.0-with-diff is the best choice for a particular source p

Re: Bug#1007717: Draft resolution for "Native source package format with non-native version"

2022-06-07 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 07/06/22 at 07:43 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > Hallo, > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 05:29:57PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > DRAFT > > > > Using its powers under constitution 6.1.5, the Technical Committee > > issues the following advice: > > I've given this some thought and feel uneasy about