[Build-common-hackers] Re: CDBS documentation
Marc Dequènes (Duck)
duck at duckcorp.org
Tue May 9 09:09:47 UTC 2006
That's fun to see how you distort reality to make you look a sympathetic
and good working fellow ; let me restore some truth is this affair.
Peter Eisentraut <petere at debian.org> writes:
> There were a number of bug reports and other things that I fixed plus
> the new features needed to be documented. Anyway, if documentation is
> to be done "seriously", it needs to be done in conjunction with the
> product it's documenting, not on some remote site.
Most thing really are cosmetic and tone changes. You didn't document
everything you yourself added (like DEB_CLEAN_EXCLUDES added in 0.4.35)
or the missing ones (like udeb management, this one you also modified
for compat level 5). You even removed completly the inline changelog,
without any integration in the Debian changelog, which is obviouly a
licence infringement. So, we cannot consider your changes in this area
being a serious work.
For the "remote site" stuff, this is an historical situation. As all
must know in this ml, Jeff and co were absolutly unreacheable and
catching one of them more and a dozen of seconds and getting replies was
a kind of miracle. I only got the delegation on the documentation work
(as stated in the changelog) and without any alioth access to the
repository i was obliged to continue maintaining it outside ; a released
package is *not* a developper tool to work on sources, so i did with my
own infrastructure (which is quite advertised, so you cannot say you
could not find sources when not finding anything in alioth).
> I thunk that when
> you included your documentation into the CDBS package, that was the
> idea. I'm sorry to hear that you have other plans.
Yes that was the idea, but is was alone and without access to
collaborative tools. I thought i could merge my changes periodically
until you or someone got back admin access to the alioth project and we
could reorganize things.
I had some fixes done (but not yet uploaded) and when i got some free
time began doing updates and reached your own changes. Suddenly, when
reading the changelog, i found you made changes, without any notice,
whereas i'm still in charge of the documentation and responding. Can't
you understand i may still be willing to be involved in the writing of
this documentation i made almost entirely ? Why didn't you mail me about
Fact is you've proved to be totally unwilling to do collaborative
maintainance while this package really requires it. Remember i offered
to review your changes with a friend before uploads, what you agreed
only for your first upload, and i indeed found a mistake in your
changes. For the next uploads you asked noone to review your work,
probably because you're too proud of your skills or unable to work with
others, and #365085 came. Working this way would surely bring some other
big mistake like this one.
Back to the documentation, i'm still ok to work on a single version of
the document but i'm absolutly unwilling to 1) work without concertation
2) have the original kewl tone of the document distroyed like you
did. Moreover your own documentation is absolutly outdated (the
DEB_CLEAN_EXCLUDES and udeb topics are not the only one missing) and
lack translation support, so you can understand in which direction i'm
willing to poor changes.
Whatever solution you choose (work alone on your fork or merge back
things into a single collaborative work), i ask you to resurrect the
distroyed changelog to comply with the licence.
Marc Dequènes (Duck)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/build-common-hackers/attachments/20060509/1df7f657/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the Build-common-hackers