Dear Rene,
I’m truly sorry for having disappointed you. My mistake stemmed from a
misjudgment on my part, as I mistakenly assumed that you might have
shifted focus away from this smaller package due to your extensive work
on larger projects like LibreOffice and its infrastructure. I greatly
appreciate all your efforts on these major packages and simply wanted to
offer a helping hand with a more straightforward task. Unfortunately,
this led to another incorrect assumption—that it might be acceptable to
apply the same formalism that worked in other, admittedly more critical,
cases. To soften this approach, I added a personal remark, hoping to
ensure the process wouldn’t be misunderstood.
Regrettably, that attempt didn’t succeed, and I realize now that I
shouldn’t have relied on our previous in-person interactions and your
awareness of the deep respect I have for your work. If it would help, I
owe you a $DRINK the next time we meet.
Am Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 07:48:28PM +0200 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
> Am 28.08.24 um 19:36 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> > Could you please give some example for what you conaiser "quite nicely"?
>
> Not filing a RFS in the first place (with even already importing the stuff
> into a salvage team space, referring reasons
OK, I tried to learn from my mistake by
1. Fixing the template to maintain a friendly tone in the ITS template
while being more informative that the intention is to help. [A1]
2. Moved the repository I've created to debian/ [A2] for your kind
inspection, fixing both open bugs and an outdated Build-Depends
that was claimed by lintian. Moreover I turned the watch file into
something which will not create any noise on your Maintainer
dashboard (that's a minor thing but helps parsing a lot of packages
to keep out noise like this[A3] as well as tracker hinting about
"uscan had problems while searching for a new upstream version")
> fr salvaging which *all* do not apply in this package[1]) and no open bugs
> which warrant any "salvaging".
I acknowledge that "salvaging" might seem like a strong word in this
context, but I respectfully disagree in principle regarding the FTBCFS
bug[A4]. When a fellow DD took the time to create a non-trivial patch
aimed at improving Debian’s adaptability to new architectures, I believe
this provided a strong justification for a timely upload.
In light of the thread "Removing more packages from unstable"[A5] (and
although I acknowledge that textdraw is not affected since the bug is
not RC), I believe it can be discouraging for active contributors to see
the time and effort they’ve invested not yielding results over an
extended period.
> But asking per mail whether it could be moved to "Debian".
I can’t change what has already happened, but I hope that my
clarification, the move to debian/, and my commitment to improving the
template’s wording will help you accept my apology.
Kind regards and hopefully see you at next DebConf for sharing some $DRINK
Andreas.
> [1] I don't reply to obvious stuff wher ethere's no more info needed like the
> typo fix or the FTBCFS one (however uneeded that one is inself, maybe I
> should have done)
[A1]
https://salsa.debian.org/tille/tiny_qa_tools/-/commit/b0fad5a2c18b5f692fe4e78d56ecfaa85f75a11f
[A2] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/textdraw
[A3]
https://udd.debian.org/dmd/?email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=textdraw&ignpackages=&format=html#todo
[A4] https://bugs.debian.org/1024931
[A5] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/08/msg00298.html
--
https://fam-tille.de
