On 2020.05.09 22:20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 14:23 +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
[...]
I specifically designed the patch I submitted for easy review and
integration, because there are missing elements from 4.x that are
present in 5.x, that we have to compensate for. I would rather not have
to split it, especially as I believe it should be included as a matter
of priority and we're simply adding delays.
I personally find it much easier to review backports in this form, and
it is the usual practice in Debian to backport changes in this form
where possible.
Then you should have asked for that 3 months ago.
Sorry but that mistakes of not following up on the patch I submitted in
a reasonable timeframe, or understanding its context and priority level
is entirely on you.
I have tried all the means I knew to bring attention to this patch for
weeks that followed its submission (including posting about it in
various Debian mailing lists, including arm64 and debian-release), and
nothing happened, and especially nobody provided any inkling about the
submission needing to be split, so you genuinely have exhausted all of
the good will I had on that topic.
Moreover, if you are taking my refusal to split the patch as an excuse
not to produce your own effort to include it in the next release, then
you are simply corroborating the idea I have established that Debian
appears to have no clue about the level of importance it should actually
allocate to the underlying problem this is attempting to solve, and,
furthermore, that it may simply be looking for a way out of a situation
it mishandled.
In other words, I am waiting to see a real concerted effort on your side
before I decide whether I am willing to contribute any further, and
insistance on asking me to perform work that, if you understood the
actual severity of the situation, you should be more than willing to
perform yourself as a matter of urgency, simply indicates that you still
haven't understood the nature of the underlying situation. As a direct
result of that, I have good reasons to estimate that further involvement
from my side is simply not worth the trouble, because it appears that
you are still going to be bouncing, delaying or mishandling the ability
for RPi4 users to install Debian from vanilla Debian ISOs.
Therefore either you understand the importance of the problem, and are
willing to perform the work required to reorganize the submission
according to your *preferences*. Or you continue to hint that you don't,
and instead try to place the blame on someone from whom you have long
exhausted any willingness to contribute to something they have good
reasons to believe, from the continued unwillingness to take the
necessary actions on your side, is most likely going to amount to
*another* completely wasted effort.
In other words, I will need to see some real good will from Debian in
the matter of trying to salvage the current RPi4 situation before I
decide to get involved in trying to contribute again. Thus, in case this
was not clear, let me be explicit in saying that you are not going to
see any further contribution from me until you have made some visible
effort to remedy that.
Regards,
/Pete
