On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Ana Guerrero <a...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 01:37:32PM +0200, Francisco Moya wrote: > > > Obviously you didn't even tried to contact David. You didn't even tried > to > > see the upstream head, which enforces *his* release policy. > > You are pointing me again to talk with upstream several times. > That is *your* job,( sorry, your sponsoree's job...), upstream theoreticaly > has > nothing do to with debian. > Right, my job. I talked to David, but you don't seem to believe it. Do contact him *if you don't trust me*. I also told you to contact Cleto to get more information on why he doesn't want to be listed as an author. Is that also my responsibility? > > > not release tarballs, and even if he did, you are not affected but his > > > release > > > policy to be forced to ship binary packages. > > > > > > Wrong (Cf. Debian Policy 3.2.1) > > > > yes, when upstream does releases, no the case. Your opinion and David's opinion seem to differ. He is the main author. Who is right? His opinion is also in svn head: atheist/doc/conf.py: ... from atheist import VERSION version = VERSION # The full version, including alpha/beta/rc tags. release = version David releases the code for every commit. Odd? Probably, but considering this as unreleased code is not less unusual. I already talked to David about releases, versions, and packaging. Besides, after wasting hours the bug is already pending and it will be fixed in the next upload. Do you really think we are doing any good to Debian now? > .... > > Rest of the mail skip since you are repeating again and again the same > stuff > and you keep reciting your own interpretation of the the debian policy as a > parrot. > > It is also sad you did not even try to understand what other people and I > tried to explain you. We all are far more experienced than you in Debian > and > we have tried to explain you how do things better, and you have not even > tried > to think about what we explained you. > What is really sad is that you didn't even notice that I made my best to reach a consensus. Indeed this bug is already tagged pending. > > > If I open the discussion in -devel then I would need to allocate enough > time > > to collect opinions, summarize, etc. I'm sorry but my time is limited > right > > now. Things may change in the future, but I consider this a minor issue > and > > indeed we all agreed to fix this in the next release, even when I didn't > > find *any* convincing argument. > > > > If things are so worthless as you think they are it should be a quick > discussion. > And if you want to ask and discuss about policy changes, use -policy, no > -devel... > > Ana > I don't see the correlation between severity and time to reach a consensus. This thread seems to contradict what you say.
