On 19 January 2015 at 08:25, Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org> wrote: > Steven,
Hi Mathieu, > > While being in terrible position to tell you what you should or should > not do, I'd still suggest you to read: > > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct > https://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ > Thanks, I will give these a read. > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Steven Capper <steven.cap...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Mathieu, >> I'm writing to express my increasing frustration at activities you've >> instigated surrounding the tbb package that I maintain. > > The wording 'frustration' is very accurate, see below. > >> Over the Christmas period a bug report was raised: >> #773359 "package tbb_4.2~20140122-4 FTBFS on mips and mipsel" >> >> and answered by yourself: >> "While I do understand the bug severity, our intention with Steve >> Capper was to only support upstream arch." > > Right, I did comment on the bug, which felt as if I had impersonate > you. Please also mention, this bug dates from Dec 17, and you've not > made any comment on an RC bug since. > >> Whilst I may agree with your sentiments, we have had no discussion >> over #773359; your response is effectively placing words in my mouth >> and I will not tolerate that. To confound matters, I wasn't even CC'ed >> in on the response! > > Again, this is very sorry, you did not include our private emails > surrounding #752820 (Jun 26). If I remember correctly I've sent you > multiple requests to have #752820 be fixed ASAP. > With your Makefiles talent, you quickly closed (Aug 21), thanks again > very much for this. > However this is where I failed to understand the following: why didn't > you request an unblock request at that point ? You knew Nov 5th was > coming quickly. That was a big mistake on my part. > >> Then there's: >> #775506 "unblock: tbb/4.2~20140122-4" >> and, >> #775263 "RM: tbb [s390x mips mipsel] -- ANAIS; #768040" >> >> Both of which have been raised without any discussion with me; I am >> the maintainer for tbb! > > While I do agree with you that I should not have requested 775506 > without contacted you first. Here is a linearized history of what > happen: > > 1) > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=775262 > RM: openvdb [mipsel sparc] -- ANAIS; #768040 > > Before you were tbb maintainer I had to work on tbb fixed to have the > openvdb test suite to work on POWER arch. Therefore I'd appreciate > that only proper arches are available in tbb for any dependie package > to work correctly (openvdb maintainer hat on). > Now if you read this report, you'll think this is fairly dumb, since > there is only two options: source upload which will go against #773359 > at some point. Or as clarified a couple of minutes ago: > > block 775262 by 775263 > > 2) > Which leads to 775263 you mentionned above as me stepping on your > shoes. It happens to me a lot that a bug is reported in my package, > but quickly discover that the bug is within an underlying package. > This is *exactly* what happen, I even clarified this with my `block` > request. I do believe this was my right for 775263 to do so. > >> The technical work is hard enough, and I'm new to Debian and am >> learning the ropes still; it is not helpful to keep me in the dark >> over my own package. > > This is exactly what was depicted in our private emails surrounding > #752820, and this was also my *assomption* when you uploaded it in Aug > but never requested an unblock request. > So as said above, this is an incorrect assumption, and I should not > have reported this unblock request. However as explained above this > adds extra work for package depending on tbb since mips* and s390x are > non-functional on this arches (IMHO, again I am not tbb maintainer, > simply a tbb user) > >> I appreciate that you are trying to help, but I cannot maintain this >> package whilst continually looking over my shoulder. I welcome help, >> but I must insist that maintainer related tasks surrounding tbb are >> discussed with me before they are instigated. > > Since our discussion about #752820, you've never ever mentionned this. > So I (incorrectly) assumed you appreciated my help on bug triaging. I'm happy for any help I can get, I just need to be CC'ed into responses to bugs (the system didn't send me feedback) and a quick heads-up if something does need doing and I've obviously not noticed. > >> [ I've CC'ed in debian-devel@lists.debian.org, as this is the second >> time I've had to bring this sort of thing up with you. ]. > > You've forgotten to mentionned I deeply appologized for this (I know > you received the email, since you answered it). You did apologise. > > I'd like to mention that so far I already had three legitimate unblock > requests refused, so I would really appreciate if you could clarify > your position on what arches should be available for tbb in jessie. > In turn I understand that I should have stopped right after #775263, > and never fill #775506 without your consent first. However as > explained above, please clarify your position on tbb's arches, and > mention you've never sent a single email to either me or the BTS about > this. I would like amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, powerpc, ppc64el to go in Jessie. I am working on a new version of the package with more stringent architectures defined; once uploaded, I will raise a bug to attempt to get this into Jessie. Having read my original email again, my language was overly abrasive and harsh and I do apologise for that; you didn't deserve that. To re-iterate; I do really value help, I just don't like surprises. I would also be happy for you to be a co-maintainer (as long as I'm kept in the loop). Cheers, -- Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caekjja+ckqb8kfeo_zwxoydcfhd8lht0e6ohqh6nn7faxzk...@mail.gmail.com
