On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 1:17:27 AM AEDT Martín Ferrari wrote: > Well, now we have two versions of the same thing in the repository, > which will need to be maintained separately. We could have instead fixed > the namespace issue.
There is no drama about that. You can drop duplicated file from your -common
package since upstream no longer ship it as part of prometheus-common.
> But this goes way further than that:
>
> * You are packaging the whole upstream tree, which is supposed to
> provide bindings for many different languages, which you are not
> providing, nor the naming of the source package is reflecting.
You are welcome to work on that if you wish.
> * In nomad you are also build-depending on the common library, which
> includes the protobuf. So instead of building a different package you
> could have renamed the protobuf file, or something.
I could but I've chosen to package dependency instead to preserve name space.
Why do you have problem with that?
> * But actually, nomad *does not* use this libraries (I just ran grep -r
> on the source tree). These build-dependenies are spurious, it is
> actually a dependency of golang-github-armon-go-metrics, which uses the
> prometheus client library, which makes all this stuff transparent.
I see... Thanks for explaining. However please note that Nomad-0.3.1 dropped
some dependencies that I packaged in order to upload 0.3.0.
> Dmitry, I have to be blunt, I find this attitude pretty upsetting, and
> very much not in the spirit of team work..
I hate to bring that argument but I'm not thrilled to be the most active
maintainer on the team. I need to get things done within very limited time
that I often borrow heavily from my sleep. Could you please explain to which
of my actions specifically upset you? Packaging of minor dependency that your
package provides but really shouldn't?
> IF there was some issue (but there was none), we could have tried to
> find some solution that avoided this.
You are really complaining about minor thing and FYI when I got your email
I've already uploaded client-model package. I could not take immediate action
back then (and I dod not seem it neccessary) and when I got back to it
package was alreadyy accepted. And frankly I'm happy about it.
> You saw the package was a duplicate, and that it was owned by the team
> even, but ignored that.
Could you please elaborate what did you expected me to do?
> It is already the third time I have to tell you that you are about to
> upload a duplicate package because you had not looked before.
Wow. I'm surprised. Could you please kindly refresh my memory about two other
incidents?
> Please, be
> more careful, otherwise it is the team that will have to pick up the
> pieces of all this.
Sure. No worries.
--
All the best,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
There is nothing more odious than the majority. It consist of a few
powerful men who lead the way; of accommodating rascals and submissive
weaklings; and of a mass of men who trot after them without in the least
knowing their own minds.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
