On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 27.01.2009, 11:26 -0800 schrieb Don Armstrong: > > Since it wasn't discussed on -policy or -project or -science, it > > quite clearly has domain relevance only for the debian-science > > alioth project.[1] > > This might be clear for all those, who contribute to "Debian > Science". It is not clear for people getting to know "Debian > Science". For those the document IMO is misleading.
People's perceptions are often different from reality.[1] Changing documents to avoid giving false impressions is useful, but doesn't change the actual effect of the documentation, which is what I was talking about. > > I think everyone is in violent agreement with this; what's left is > > the relatively minor concern of a misleading document, which can > > best be dealt with by submitting a patch to change the proposed > > document, instead of the continuation of this thread on this > > mailing list. > > This was IMO the best place for the topic. Sure, but the problem has now been identified and agreed upon. Fixing it is what is left. [I probably won't say anything more in this thread, but if you actually want the proposal fixed, you should send in a patch; otherwise, don't expect someone else to do it.] > > I, for one, am glad that people in the debian-science alioth > > project are taking steps to adopt a consitent policy for the > > packages that they happen to maintain as a group. >> > To be honest: debian-science is probably the worst place for > recommendations of packaging tools over other packaging tools, > because here you will probably find the largest variety of workflows > in the whole area of places, where scientific software packaging is > done. Different people have different workflows, but a team working on a set of packages often requires a consistent set of workflows if only to avoid introducing conflict. It's not as if creating alioth projects was particularly difficult, even for maintaining a single package. Don Armstrong 1: Some would argue that they're always different, but that's a bit off topic. -- A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
