I'm really stoned by reading this bug. Daniel is nicely proposing to accept patches from Steve, and re-add support for Upstart, and he just wrote that Steve could have just get in touch.
- Why are we loosing time to discuss the timeline of uploads, to see if there was upstart support at some point or not? What's the point of doing this? - Why this bug isn't just closed, and the issue just discussed between Steve and Daniel, so that a technical solution can be found? Daniel seems to agree to have upstart support, so what are we discussing exactly in this bug? - Why are some people like Andreas making dangerous allusions to other maters that seem unrelated, with no reference? I don't think such gratuitous accusation this is welcome in this bug (or in fact, anywhere in Debian). Or is it just OK because this is Daniel that we're talking about? If so, that's unfair. If Daniel wrote: "Removing upstart hacks, they are ugly and upstart is dead now." probably that's what he felt (eg: that upstart is dead). He's probably just wrong about it, and we should "Assume good faith" (ref: our code of conduct). [And, by the way, I do agree that what the Debian policy proposes at 9.11.1 is an ugly hack, and that Upstart should know better...] We've just adopted a code of conduct, were we should "Be respectful", "Assume good faith", and "Be collaborative". I know Daniel well, and I believe he is a nice person, which is trying to do all of the above, and do what is technically right. It'd be nice if the persons interacting with him also tried to act in this way. For me, the next course of action is: - Close this bug - Let Steve and Daniel work out reintroduction of Upstart in his package - Have everyone calm down and stop useless finger pointing Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53651027.7070...@debian.org
