On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 08:38:52PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > You could make the point that he should have posted to debian-private > instead of debian-devel.
Rolf is a DM, so he cannot read debian-private and he might not even know it exists. > In any case naming the people who did this is required, sure, but not in the subject.... > and IMHO the package hijack is a much worse offense than > naming the offenders in an email subject. you kick me in the face and then i can kick you in the belly, because that's less bad? > > 2nd, Athos' upload didnt remove you from uploaders, so "hijacked" is the > > wrong word as well. > Changing the Maintainer: field without any previous attempt to > contact the maintainer makes it a clear hijack. only if you differate being listed in the maintainers: or uploaders: field. *I* wouldnt care about such a distinction. > > 3rd, why oh why did you reintroduce fixed bugs like 876571? (I'd > > understand if you just reverted everything the next day but 3 weeks > > after their upload the urgency is gone...) > >... > At what time does a victim notice that their package was hijacked? please put "victim" in quotes, noone got harmed here. and to still answer: Rolf was kept in the uploaders: field, so he was informed, so your argument is moot. check https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20180324T213403Z/pool/main/g/gjots2/gjots2_2.4.1-3.dsc > You are publicly blaming the victim. "victim". you are publicically demoting real victims here. > Do you have any proof that the victim was actually notified in any > way at the time of the hijack? no, I don't monitor Rolf's incoming email that well. -- cheers, Holger
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
