Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I suspect that _you_ do not get it: Releasing packages once per release > cycle is bad. Doing it close to freeze time is even worse. > > It is no excuse that others do similar.
I get it now. > I fail to understand why I should help you become a DD if you insist on > using a bad packaging style even when pointed out to you. Maybe because this will help to ease stopping this bad practice, allowing me to upload without delays? >> I sent the package to the few that have sent BTS entries. I found it >> very reasonable to ask them to test it for FEW DAYS before I bother my >> sponsor for the upload (the plan was a week). If you don't like that >> way of doing things (I don't really either), then feel free to push so >> that an application manager is assigned to me quickly, so I can become >> a Debian Developer and upload faster without having to bother someone. >> While dealing with sponsored upload is ok for few packages, it's not >> when you maintain so many (I actually packaged about 20, not all of >> them are in the archive yet, and I had to skip some release too). > > Great that you are only few days from releasing. I was unaware of that. > > That does not, however, change my opinion on discrete "proof-reading". > Be transparent: Post to the bugreports if you want someone to test a > patch before released to Sid - others than the original bugreporter > might follow the bugreport - and perhaps even wants to help test. > > Again, I fail to understand how you becoming a DD changes (as you > explained yourself) a deliberate choice of minimizing to a single upload > per release cycle, postponed until late in the cycle. I can't find it, but I have read about this in an announce letter, and I thought it was not a so bad practice. I wrote there that many people do that as well, so I thought, why not as it saves my time. Now I can understand why it's not recommended. Now, becoming a DD would change because going back and forth with my sponsor is both inconvenient and annoying. >> I did for one of them. It's a very unfortunate timing here, 2 or 3 >> days later, and the package would have been uploaded, closing the >> bugs. Now would you like to sponsor this upload this time? > > As I mentioned earlier I do not like the sponsoring system. So no, I do > not want to sponsor your package. All too often I experience sponsored > packaged that are badly maintained - the sponsor have no special > interest in the package so forgets about looking after it, and the > packager is not "hanging out" in Debian so often forgets about it too. > > Great that this is not the case here. You just happen to deliberately > choose to stay silent for a year and then (silently except one) fix all > bugs within few days. I wouldn't say it this way. I had not enough time to make new versions of the package often enough, and I thought that for this package, it was not so urgent, and that one upload would have been enough. This is very specific to dkimproxy here. >> Also, I'd like you to consider the difficulties with the Debian system >> to become a DD or to go by sponsoring: IT IS very annoying sometimes >> and adds unnecessary difficulties to the packaging work. One must be >> very motivated to overcome it. I'm not so good in promoting myself and >> the social thing of Debian (in fact, I'm not so interested in that >> part, I just want the job to be done), which is adding to the issues >> maybe. Maybe as well, going to a debconf and get to know people would >> help. > > If your interest in Debian is specifically about packaging, not other > parts, then I strongly recommend that you join a team and not apply for > DD, as it is unneeded, and your contributions are equally appreciated as > a non-DD. Well, there's no other way to have upload rights (using the DM flag is not satisfying for me either), and participate to the Debian distribution efforts but to be a DD. The thing is, working in improving Debian is totally mixed with the organization kind of thing (voting for the constitution, etc.), and I have seen over the years, so many controversy, that I want to stay far from any strong arguments that might happen. I think that many of them are a total loss of time. I'm thinking for example about the discussion about Java, the one about driver blobs, or the default shell, etc. This is the part that I don't want to get involved in: endless troll discussions, organizational things, etc. But I still want to get involved with any other thing that is more productive, and maybe get involved where people need it, for example, helping writing the Debian installer (as I know that they need resources, and I have couples of other ideas, I will help if I find the time). >> I will keep in mind the derivative issue here (Ubuntu, etc.), and will >> try to not let packages become old like I did with dkimproxy. The >> reasons I stated above are explanations of why things happened this >> way, but not at all excuses. > > First you argue that the timing was deliberate, then you promise to > speed up in the future, and then you say that the speed until now is > sensible. I am confused. Well, after you wrote to me, I understood my mistake. Isn't it the point in exchanging opinions? :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
