[Brian May, 2015-10-07]
> > Probably... Now, I've followed your orders not to use Git, General
> > Piotr, so why complaining again?!?
> >
>
> Unfortunately, terms like "General Piotr" start looking like personal
> attacks; not going to help your arguments.
I take it as a compliment (it's a high r
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 at 00:32 Thomas Goirand wrote:
> You've only enforced *your own* policy, backed-up by only a small vocal
> minority, taking the rule to the extreme (ie: a few days before the Git
> migration, it's still not ok to start new projects using Git, according
> to you...).
>
Accordin
On 10/06/2015 11:36 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> my point is that you could argue that your packages are better
> maintained than ours (less bug reports, wider Python 3 support,
> newest upstream releases, more popcon users, ...) but you choose the
> fact that you maintain more of them... and then
[Thomas Goirand, 2015-10-06]
> On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> >> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons
> >> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and
> >
> > it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to
On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons
>> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and
>
> it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to have more
> maintainers with few packag
[Thomas Goirand, 2015-10-06]
> You're still avoiding to answer what are the conditions for me to get
> back in the team.
he did answer and I did as well (see my first private email to you).
One more time: you were removed from the team because you promise to
change behaviour and then repeat the s
On 10/06/2015 01:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you
>>> to re-engage productively.
>> I wrote it to you privat
On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you
> > to re-engage productively.
> I wrote it to you privately. You can't just tell that it's going to be a
>
(I was asked not to reply anymore, and I was doing it quite happily,
but since it involves a private conversation between Thomas and me, I
need to step in)
>> I think that generally when one transgresses on someone else's package in a
>> way the maintainer doesn't like it's the responsibility of
On 10/06/2015 03:31 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
> On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when
>> called
>>> on it. If you'd just reacted with someth
Thomas Goirand writes:
> You can't write this:
>
> On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > causes me to doubt the sincerity of this.
>
> and this:
>
> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I don't think you're intentionally malicious.
>
> a few hours apart, and get away wi
You can't write this:
On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> causes me to doubt the sincerity of this.
and this:
On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I don't think you're intentionally malicious.
a few hours apart, and get away with it. Take your pick... am I an evil
liar
On 10/05/2015 11:17 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:00 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> The things you listed that I help maintain - mock, testtools, etc -
>> are *not* OpenStack specific. They existed before OpenStack, and
>> likely will exist after. They have other users, particul
On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you to
> re-engage productively.
I wrote it to you privately. You can't just tell that it's going to be a
temporary ban, without giving a timeline. You avoided to answer my
ques
On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May
wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman
>wrote:
>
>> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when
>called
>> on it. If you'd just reacted with something like "Oops, made a
>mistake,
>> I'll
>> revert it from svn a
On 2015-10-05 23:45:57 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> Upstream will *not* fix the issue, because you know, they "fixed" it in
> their CI by adding an upper version bound in the pip requirements, which
> is fine for them in the gate. It is fixed in OpenStack Liberty though,
> which I w
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when called
> on it. If you'd just reacted with something like "Oops, made a mistake,
> I'll
> revert it from svn and ask for it to be removed from experimental."
> (fortunately fo
On October 5, 2015 7:02:58 PM EDT, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Technically right, but socially wrong is wrong.
>
>I got that point, yes.
>
>> Reading that and what you
>> wrote above, does that help you understand why I question both your
>focus and
On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Technically right, but socially wrong is wrong.
I got that point, yes.
> Reading that and what you
> wrote above, does that help you understand why I question both your focus and
> the sincerity of your expressions of regret.
The words that I'm
On Monday, October 05, 2015 11:45:57 PM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
...
> >> It is also to be noted that mock is maintained by upstream OpenStack
> >> people (ie: Robert Collins), and therefore, should be released in Debian
> >> at the same time as other t
On 10/05/2015 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality.
That's not what I did, I blacklisted these unit tests which were
failing, and kept all the others. As these unit tests were anyway
broken, it doesn't mater much.
> Were these
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:26:38PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 05, 2015, at 09:16 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> >Isn't this the whole point of unstable→testing?
>
> I guess, although it seems a lot of people run unstable so breakages affect
> more people. I run unstable on most of my Deb
On Oct 05, 2015, at 09:16 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>Isn't this the whole point of unstable→testing?
I guess, although it seems a lot of people run unstable so breakages affect
more people. I run unstable on most of my Debian machines. I think almost
nobody actually runs -proposed.
Cheers,
-Ba
On Monday, October 05, 2015 05:11:26 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this
> >kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen.
>
> Ubuntu at least does have a tech
On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality.
>Were these bad tests? Did you report these issues upstream?
Silently passing broken tests was one of a common pattern of issues I found
when making Python 3.5 suppor
On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:00 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
>The things you listed that I help maintain - mock, testtools, etc -
>are *not* OpenStack specific. They existed before OpenStack, and
>likely will exist after. They have other users, particularly mock
>which is very widely used.
I intensely dis
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:11:26PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
> >In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this
> >kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen.
>
> Ubuntu at least does have a
On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this
>kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen.
Ubuntu at least does have a technical solution that helps ameliorate
archive-wide breakages, and that
On 6 October 2015 at 01:51, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote:
>> On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC
>>> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in Sid, even
>>>
On Monday, October 05, 2015 02:51:26 PM Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote:
> > On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC
> >> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in
On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote:
> On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC
>> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in Sid, even
>> though upstream (Robert Collins) is employed by HP and kn
On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC
> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in Sid, even
> though upstream (Robert Collins) is employed by HP and knew OpenStack
> Kilo (currently in Sid) would break with
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 12:45 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> nor is uploading a package just for their own interest and then let
>> the maintainer fix the mistakes done. This has happened in the past,
>> most of the times with Thomas, that's enough.
>
> Sa
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 12:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> He knew it violated team norms and just didn't care.
>
> That's not what I wrote.
>
> I went into packages.d.o, saw DPMT, and a bit too fast, thought it was
> team maintained and that an uplo
On 09/30/2015 05:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:26:08PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I've done hundreds of uploads. Lots of them uploading stuff maintained
>> within the DPMT. So far, only a single person complained...
> That's not really true.
Ah, correct, there
On 09/30/2015 11:15 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> yeah that's it, you care only about pkg-openstack and has no interest
> to be a member of this team
No !
> (as it's proved by the fact you keep
> uploading general-purposes python modules under pkg-openstak umbrella)
This is due to the fact we're not
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:26:08PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I've done hundreds of uploads. Lots of them uploading stuff maintained
> within the DPMT. So far, only a single person complained...
That's not really true.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 09/30/2015 12:45 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> nor is uploading a package just for their own interest and then let
> the maintainer fix the mistakes done. This has happened in the past,
> most of the times with Thomas, that's enough.
Sandro,
I've done hundreds of uploads. Lots of them uploading stu
On 09/30/2015 11:15 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> so long for "Finger-pointing is pointless loss of time for everyone."
> just a few lines above..
It wasn't the goal of my 2 examples.
On 09/30/2015 12:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> He knew it violated team norms and just didn't care.
That's not what I wrote.
I went into packages.d.o, saw DPMT, and a bit too fast, thought it was
team maintained and that an upload would be accepted. Yes, I knew the
rule, but no I didn't just ig
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 at 10:45 Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 04:02 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> > but I'm not sure that having someone
> > blindly upload my packages if they haven't worked on them before is a
> > good idea.
>
> If this is what you think of my upload, I don't agree with th
On September 30, 2015 6:47:57 AM EDT, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
>> I'd much prefer he was spending time reviewing jtaylor's patch to fix
>the python-numpy FTBFS on powerpc instead of being distracted by this
>argument.
>
>slightly off topic he
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I'd much prefer he was spending time reviewing jtaylor's patch to fix the
> python-numpy FTBFS on powerpc instead of being distracted by this argument.
slightly off topic here, but I plan to look at it and (if successful)
upload numpy th
> I see nothing wrong with Goirand's upload. I believe Sandro Tosi is
> still using the pre-binNMU, pre-NMU, pre-LowNMU, pre-Team packaging
> maintenance mentality which is not the commonly accepted behaviour and
> mentality in Debian anymore.
this is not a binNMU (which is irrelevant here), nor a
On September 30, 2015 6:27:02 AM EDT, Dimitri John Ledkov
wrote:
>On 30 September 2015 at 10:26, Thomas Kluyver
>wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015, at 01:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> This has driven
>>> some contributors away in the past, thinking we don't have team
>spirit.
>>> IMO, that's t
On 30 September 2015 at 10:26, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015, at 01:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> This has driven
>> some contributors away in the past, thinking we don't have team spirit.
>> IMO, that's truth, and this kind of thread is hurting again.
>
> Just to back this up: wa
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015, at 01:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> This has driven
> some contributors away in the past, thinking we don't have team spirit.
> IMO, that's truth, and this kind of thread is hurting again.
Just to back this up: watching threads like this go past makes working
on/with Debian
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 03:48 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>
>>> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored
>>>
>>> either policy changes or this has to stop at some point.
On 09/29/2015 03:48 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
>> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored
>>
>> either policy changes or this has to stop at some point.
>
> A few observations.
>
> The policy should perhaps be be
On 09/29/2015 04:02 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> but I'm not sure that having someone
> blindly upload my packages if they haven't worked on them before is a
> good idea.
If this is what you think of my upload, I don't agree with the above
wording at least.
On 09/29/2015 04:02 PM, Tristan Selig
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 02:11 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>>> Are
>>> there any specific changes you object to
>>
>> As for the technical aspects, tests were disabled mentioning they
>> access internet (and from the code it is not clear at all if they do,
On 09/29/2015 02:11 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> Are
>> there any specific changes you object to
>
> As for the technical aspects, tests were disabled mentioning they
> access internet (and from the code it is not clear at all if they do,
> and I kinda doubt that)
It clearly showed access to the ou
Le mardi 29 sept. 2015 à 20:40:11 (+0200), Piotr Ożarowski a écrit :
> [Barry Warsaw, 2015-09-29]
> > On Sep 29, 2015, at 05:40 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> >
> > >- I want lintian not to bug me about NMU ;
> >
> > This one's easy. Just put "Team upload" in the changelog (e.g. `dch
> > --team`).
[Barry Warsaw, 2015-09-29]
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 05:40 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
>
> >- I want lintian not to bug me about NMU ;
>
> This one's easy. Just put "Team upload" in the changelog (e.g. `dch --team`).
it's even easier than that... add yourself to Uploaders (you're
maintaining it after
On Sep 29, 2015, at 05:40 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
>- I want lintian not to bug me about NMU ;
This one's easy. Just put "Team upload" in the changelog (e.g. `dch --team`).
Cheers,
-Barry
Hi,
Le mardi 29 sept. 2015 à 09:48:16 (-0400), Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
> >Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored
> >
> >either policy changes or this has to stop at some point.
>
> A few observations.
>
> The
On Sep 29, 2015, at 02:02 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
>After reading this thread, I feel like I should go through all of my
>packages and remove the team from Maintainer for all of them. I try very
>hard to respond promptly to pings (bugs, email, IRC, ...) about my
>packages, even if it's just to
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 at 15:48 Barry Warsaw wrote:
> The wiki says that the general rule of thumb is to set the team as
> Maintainer,
> to which I agree. I may not have been as deliberate about my own
> packages, so
> I plan on reviewing them, and will fix any that aren't "special".
>
After readi
On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored
>
>either policy changes or this has to stop at some point.
A few observations.
The policy should perhaps be better promoted or more explicitly written. The
links you prov
On September 29, 2015 7:55:36 AM EDT, Julien Cristau
wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:26:44 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
>> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been
>ignored
>>
>>
>http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html#maintainership
>> ht
> OTOH, this is experimental. It's not like this upload has any effect on
> anyone except to let Thomas work on packages that depend on it.
still the policy defines a set of rules that apply to any debian
suites, or are you suggesting that experimental is not cover by those
rules and we could do
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:26:44 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored
>
> http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html#maintainership
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin
>
> either poli
[Sandro Tosi, 2015-09-29]
> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored
>
> http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html#maintainership
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin
>
> either policy changes or this has to stop at
Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored
http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html#maintainership
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin
either policy changes or this has to stop at some point.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1
64 matches
Mail list logo
