* Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060619 13:12]: > Le lundi 19 juin 2006 à 12:15 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit : > > Don't you think it might be a good idea to explain the policy better if > > it is not understood correctly? > > If high-grade developers need explanations, you can't expect the policy > to be widely understood in the long term.
If you change things, you need to explain the changes properly. That's nothing new. > > Also, please explain why you think "the python transition was going to a > > dead end". I cannot see it. > > Because it is being rushed for the sake of a single person, against the > opinion of almost all fellow developers, with a broken building system. Do you want to say "because you don't like the way it is done"? Why do you think it is a broken building system? Where did "almost all fellow developers" say that they disagree with the python transition? And, BTW, if you really think the current policy is so wrong, why didn't you say in Mexico that you cannot accept the change? > > You mean, after we all put time and energy into a discussion, agreed on > > some results, and put some more work into the results, you're just going > > to tell us that you will ignore all of that? That sounds like a rather > > large slap into people's faces. > > No, I'm telling you that I will ignore *part* of that. The broken part. You tell us that you make cherry-picking? That's not how policies work. They are written down so that all people can (and should) follow them, so that any package behaves the same way. > If it were only for me to decide, I would indeed ignore all of that, > because the old policy was better. Remember: the *whole* current > situation was created by Matthias Klose and only him. Please put your hate against Matthias aside for the moment. The whole current situation is a result that e.g. the release team didn't like the prior policy, because it enforced us to have thick python transitions. Compare e.g. http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/06/msg00241.html > > A policy becomes also effective when violations of a policy lead to > > packages exclusion from the next stable release. > > So what? Do you want working packages, or do you want packages > conforming to a policy? Can't we have both? Actually, I think a policy is quite an important tool because it shows definitly what one can expect from a package. Of course, policy can be changed, but just ignoring policy is only breaking expectations. And if you want to change policy, I'd rather expect a mail like "proposed change to the python policy", then just breaking policy in one of your packages (this is BTW the difference between changing policy and breaking it). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
