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-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
