Re: Developer Behavior
On Wednesday 10 January 2001 03:23, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. Oh, well, as long as THAT'S all it is... The thing is that a machine that can't load the correct kernel can be easily fixed, just use another machine to dd a kernel to a floppy. A machine which boots up but which has broken keyboard mapping or broken NSS is much more effort to fix. Also if you have something like NSS break on you then you can logout and then when you realise that you've done the wrong thing it's too late, you're machine is stuffed because you can't login as root again! If your lilo.conf is wrong then you have between now and your next reboot to fix it. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Developer Behavior
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:54:08AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: From: Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-devel@lists.debian.org This was CC'ed to me why, exactly? -- G. Branden Robinson | Religion is something left over from the Debian GNU/Linux| infancy of our intelligence; it will [EMAIL PROTECTED] | fade away as we adopt reason and science http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | as our guidelines. -- Bertrand Russell pgp0y3YgrL5dL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Russell Coker wrote: On Wednesday 10 January 2001 03:23, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. Oh, well, as long as THAT'S all it is... The thing is that a machine that can't load the correct kernel can be easily fixed, just use another machine to dd a kernel to a floppy. A machine which boots up but which has broken keyboard mapping or broken NSS is much more effort to fix. Also if you have something like NSS break on you then you can logout and then when you realise that you've done the wrong thing it's too late, you're machine is stuffed because you can't login as root again! If your lilo.conf is wrong then you have between now and your next reboot to fix it. Of course, the .conf in lilo.conf implies that packages really shouldn't futz with it without warning. I really don't remember a exception in policy for things that are correctable before next reboot. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Behavior
On Thursday 11 January 2001 01:55, John Galt wrote: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. Oh, well, as long as THAT'S all it is... The thing is that a machine that can't load the correct kernel can be easily fixed, just use another machine to dd a kernel to a floppy. A machine which boots up but which has broken keyboard mapping or broken NSS is much more effort to fix. Also if you have something like NSS break on you then you can logout and then when you realise that you've done the wrong thing it's too late, you're machine is stuffed because you can't login as root again! If your lilo.conf is wrong then you have between now and your next reboot to fix it. Of course, the .conf in lilo.conf implies that packages really shouldn't futz with it without warning. I really don't remember a exception in policy for things that are correctable before next reboot. I never said that it's desirable behaviour. I am working on fixing it ASAP! I am just saying that there are many more serious things that can go wrong and which have gone wrong for me while tracking unstable. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Developer Behavior
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 07:55:04AM -0700 , John Galt wrote:
Of course, the .conf in lilo.conf implies that packages really shouldn't
futz with it without warning. I really don't remember a exception in
yes. though lilo.conf is always autogenerated - either by boot floppies or
by liloconfig (sp?).
anyway - use grub :)
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Obviously the only rational solution to your problem is suicide.
Re: Developer Behavior
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:54:08AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: The thing is that a machine that can't load the correct kernel can be easily fixed, just use another machine to dd a kernel to a floppy. You really need the kernel you have compiled for your machine, not just any kernel. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Behavior
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:02:58AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:54:08AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: The thing is that a machine that can't load the correct kernel can be easily fixed, just use another machine to dd a kernel to a floppy. You really need the kernel you have compiled for your machine, not just any kernel. if you were able to install the system, then the generic kernel should be able to work. at least enough to get youin to fix your LILO/GRUB. -john
Re: Developer Behavior
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:02:58AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: | On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:54:08AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: | The thing is that a machine that can't load the correct kernel can be easily | fixed, just use another machine to dd a kernel to a floppy. | | You really need the kernel you have compiled for your machine, | not just any kernel. | Yes, but you should have made a rescue disk when you installed the kernel. | | Hamish | -- | Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -D
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:25:53AM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: waiting for DAM approval, whenever that is supposed to happen (emphasis on the supposed to happen) No offense to the DAM, but I share Eray's pedicament and feel that I could definately contribute more effectively if I had the ability to make uploads. Currently I go through a sponsor, which works but is less efficent than being able to contribute directly. If you're in the keyring but have no account you can upload through an upload queue. There are a few of those around the world. This adds probably 1 day to the processing time. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Behavior
Hi Hamish! You wrote: If you're in the keyring but have no account you can upload through an upload queue. There are a few of those around the world. This adds probably 1 day to the processing time. How can you be on the keyring while not having an account on auric? Either you are a developer and you have both, or you are not a developer and you have neither. -- Kind regards, +---+ | Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce | || que l'on va faire, a quoi| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | bon le faire?| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Pablo Picasso | +---+
Re: Developer Behavior
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 09:59:39AM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: You wrote: If you're in the keyring but have no account you can upload through an upload queue. There are a few of those around the world. This adds probably 1 day to the processing time. How can you be on the keyring while not having an account on auric? Either you are a developer and you have both, or you are not a developer and you have neither. Probably you can't. I don't know the NM process well enough to be sure. A couple of people mentioned that they do not have an account, not that they have not been approved. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Behavior
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:03:40PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: How can you be on the keyring while not having an account on auric? Either you are a developer and you have both, or you are not a developer and you have neither. Probably you can't. I don't know the NM process well enough to be sure. A couple of people mentioned that they do not have an account, not that they have not been approved. People tend to put a '==' between the above two... Marcin -- Marcin Owsiany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://student.uci.agh.edu.pl/~porridge/ GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216
Re: Developer Behavior
** On Jan 09, Marcin Owsiany scribbled: On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:03:40PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: How can you be on the keyring while not having an account on auric? Either you are a developer and you have both, or you are not a developer and you have neither. Probably you can't. I don't know the NM process well enough to be sure. A couple of people mentioned that they do not have an account, not that they have not been approved. People tend to put a '==' between the above two... I just wonder how is the NM queue term defined. Is it a FIFO queue? Or rather a random access array? I'm asking because looking at the people that became new maintainers I see folks who applied 5 months after me and already are maintainers. It's OK with me - I suppose there are some problems with my application, but it would be nice if somebody contacted me (and probably others that are in the same situation - I didn't browse the entire database :)). I will wait patiently, I'm just wondering about all that stuff. marek -- Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer /* A completely unrelated fortune */ If you want me to be a good little bunny just dangle some carats in front of my nose. -- Lauren Bacall pgpUXVVZJ1YBd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
On Tuesday 09 January 2001 03:17, Vince Mulhollon wrote: 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable. I understand that people don't like being told what to do and agree that it isn't the place of Debian policy to tell us what to do when we aren't doing strictly Debian development work). But I think that there is some merit to having discouragement towards running unstable on production machines. I've been getting flamed immensely recently about my lilo package that over-wrote lilo.conf incorrectly. Even though: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. 2) I am working on this as fast as possible given the constraints of available time, dpkg issues, and not wanting to release a second non-perfect package! 3) I have on several occasions recently had worse things happen to me as a result of running unstable, there have been several occasions when running machines have been rendered unusable because of bugs in packages (it became impossible to login). In these occasions I have not felt it necessary to flame the maintainers. The people who flame the developers contribute nothing. When they report bugs that exist they invariably do so after more polite people have already reported them and the developer has started work. Then work has to be interrupted to spend time fighting off flames. I don't think that unstable should be limited to Debian developers, but I think that it should be restricted to discourage people who aren't reading debian-devel. What if we setup the servers to use a different random password every month that was only announced on debian-devel? -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: Developer Behavior
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: But I think that there is some merit to having discouragement towards running unstable on production machines. I've been getting flamed immensely recently about my lilo package that over-wrote lilo.conf incorrectly. Even though: You're probably getting flamed more because it's a this is just wrong sort of bug - there's no way it was ever going to be safe to install that version of the package. While users should expect that unstable may be broken some of the time there's also the expectation that developers will try to minimse this breakage or (if it's unavoidable) make an effort to warn people (as with the current INN package saying I'm about to hose your system - are you sure?). The people who flame the developers contribute nothing. When they report bugs that exist they invariably do so after more polite people have already reported them and the developer has started work. Then work has to be interrupted to spend time fighting off flames. This I would agree with. I don't think that unstable should be limited to Debian developers, but I think that it should be restricted to discourage people who aren't reading debian-devel. What if we setup the servers to use a different random password every month that was only announced on debian-devel? It would be nice if people actually used unstable. Besides, there's still no guarantee that people are actually going to read the warnings or even that they will be warned before whatever it is causes the breakage. -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
Re: Developer Behavior
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. Oh, well, as long as THAT'S all it is... -- G. Branden Robinson | Experience should teach us to be most on Debian GNU/Linux| our guard to protect liberty when the [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government's purposes are beneficent. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Louis Brandeis pgpURobUgWHiz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:23:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. Oh, well, as long as THAT'S all it is... Heh, it's not like you're rebooting a Linux box more than one a year anyway
Re: Developer Behavior
Today, Mark Mealman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) This situation does not stop a running machine from working, it will only stop it from booting. Oh, well, as long as THAT'S all it is... Heh, it's not like you're rebooting a Linux box more than one a year anyway Only applies if you use unstable on a production server (or a calculatron of similar designation), and You Shouldn't Do That, remember? (-; Next post is on topic. I promise. -- Andreas Fuchs, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], antifuchs Hail RMS! Hail Cthulhu! Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!
Re: Developer Behavior
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:34:39AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: | I don't think that unstable should be limited to Debian developers, but I | think that it should be restricted to discourage people who aren't reading | debian-devel. What if we setup the servers to use a different random | password every month that was only announced on debian-devel? | Would you also remove that announcement from the archives? Having a password would cause extra hassle for those who want unstable, and if the announcement is in the archives it solves nothing. (just something to think about if this route is considered) I like having a stable system anyways. ;-) (If I did run unstable it wouldn't be in my main desktop machine) -D PS. Has anybody read some reviews on MS Windows Me? I saw one in PC Magazine. A simplified summary is : it breaks much more than 95/98 did so don't bother with it (you can't even start programs from autoexec.bat anymore, probably includes loadlin.exe). Recommending Debian unstable to users who want Windows Me is proabaly a good idea that includes a great advance in stability wink.
Developer Behavior
Some Eray quotes, one paragraph of advice for Eray, and a possibly useful idea at the end for everyone. Non-regulation is a false claim His actions are simply not tolerable I'd be greatly surprised if anybody told me that developers have the right to swear publicly in an outburst of adolescent frenzy. waiting for DAM approval, whenever that is supposed to happen (emphasis on the supposed to happen) Your problem (our advantage?) is your lack of power to enforce your demands. Yes, someone publicly used naughty words against you, you think their actions are not tolerable, you think our communication styles are regulated (or should be), you think we don't have the right of free speech. That's all very nice of you to let us know what you think, thank you (?). But you have no power over us. You can't fire the Xwindows maintainer, because you don't send him a paycheck. You can't censor the mailling list because you aren't the moderator (there isn't one). You attempt to objectively state what happened, then in the same thought, shift to extreme purely personal subjective opinions and wishes. You've decided in a fascist manner for us, what actions are intolerable, what speech is acceptable, what policies are false, and how you're above the law and able to quote private emails freely although everyone else isn't above the law. You can't boss people around and tell them how to think if they are volunteers in a freedom oriented group. I would advise you not to push for some kind of formal code of conduct, because with your luck, the new code would be modified into something like Debian will tar and feather anyone who annoys more than x% of the developers, and it would seem in a few short days you've managed to offend everyone from the Account Manager team to the X maintainer. Luckily for you, there are plenty of other people, already in Debian, with poor social skills, so at least you can reasonably request to be grandfathered in... My own experience in these manners is I've posted some stupid emails, sometimes because I've got the unique ability to invent a good idea long after someone else implemented it, or else I've just been plain ole stupid and in a hurry. Regarding that, I would say that true intelligence is learning from mistakes, which I'm trying to do, and I suggest you do the same. One possibly useful idea that could come out of this flamewar is an informal code of conduct. The model I'm thinking of is the ARRL amateur radio operator's code. It has about five sections, basically giving advice on how not to be annoying as a ham radio operator. It's informal in that if you ignore it, they can't kick you out of anything, yet if you're a jerk and publically ignore it, noone will have anything to do with you. Something like this might (I stress might) be useful for Debian. You could even test people on their knowledge of the code in the new applicant process. Here's my start as an example of what I'm thinking of. Debian Developer Code of Conduct by Vince The goal of the Debian Code of Conduct is to improve the social skills of Developers through a process of suggestion so that more effort can be placed on working on code and less effort can be placed on flamewars. In short, the code will try to tell you how to be a help, not an annoyance. The code is not a demand, but a really strong suggestion of what actions helps the project and what actions hurt the project. 1) A Debian Developer is a freedom oriented volunteer, yet will try to act and communicate in the most formal and professional manner they can, as if they represented a conservative bank, not as if they represented a bunch of drunks fighting at the bar. 2) A Debian Developer will RTFM, isolate the problem as much as possible, and include as much evidence as possible, before filing a bug 3) A Debian Developer will acknowledge the diversity of skill levels of his fellow developers and will try to help other developers learn, rather than flaming them for their ignorance. 4) A Debian Developer will understand that computer languages have priority over traditional languages, flaming someone for poor english (or German or whatever) is in even more annoying and non-productive than flaming someone over poor code. 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable. 6) I have this feeling in about 1 hour someone's going to post a followup that this idea was implemented way back in '92 and why don't I RTFM, but what the heck, my excuse can always be that great minds think alike, etc. - Forwarded by Vince Mulhollon/Brookfield/Norlight on 01/08/2001 09:29 AM - Eray Ozkural (exa)
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: waiting for DAM approval, whenever that is supposed to happen (emphasis on the supposed to happen) No offense to the DAM, but I share Eray's pedicament and feel that I could definately contribute more effectively if I had the ability to make uploads. Currently I go through a sponsor, which works but is less efficent than being able to contribute directly. pgpP02MkkXm9E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
Yes, it took me about a year's wait also. The point I'm making is that complaining to volunteers is ineffective unless you give a solution. Now that you and Eray have publically complained about the team's slowness, that means that after you complete the NM process, you both be joining the NM team to help your fellow developers get processed quicker, right? I'm not being sarcastic, my initial account manager who did the interviews and stuff had just completed the process a few months ago, so I assume you'll be joining the new maintainer team just like he did. Aaron Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Vince Mulhollon [EMAIL PROTECTED] us.com cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, (bcc: Vince Mulhollon/Brookfield/Norlight) 01/08/2001 Fax to: 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Developer Behavior On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: waiting for DAM approval, whenever that is supposed to happen (emphasis on the supposed to happen) No offense to the DAM, but I share Eray's pedicament and feel that I could definately contribute more effectively if I had the ability to make uploads. Currently I go through a sponsor, which works but is less efficent than being able to contribute directly. (See attached file: attpucp9.dat) attpucp9.dat Description: Binary data
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable. I don't see how this affects the Debian community. If anything, it would result in more bug reports and quality control. I run unstable on my server becuase it's where I have many packages installed or in use. How is this a crime? I don't bitch when it breaks, but I fix it and sumbit a patch (sometimes:) ). This could be more generally stated A Debian Developer will never knowingly hit his head with a baseball bat in private. pgpo8TE5DSsh4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:35:51AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: Now that you and Eray have publically complained about the team's slowness, that means that after you complete the NM process, you both be joining the NM team to help your fellow developers get processed quicker, right? I'm not being sarcastic, my initial account manager who did the interviews and stuff had just completed the process a few months ago, so I assume you'll be joining the new maintainer team just like he did. The problem I'm facing is that my account has not been created. If once I am approved it would be possible for me to approve and create accounts for new maintainers on a voulenteer basis, I would be very happy to do so and save these poor new maintainers months of waiting. The DAM is quite busy, and I sympathize with him. However, once allowed to I would voulenteer to aid him with his duties to expedite the processes. pgpnIQfM7vM9K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable Why shouldn't a developer encourage an ordinary user to run unstable? * It would speed up the bug finding process. (Don't mention testing, please) * For most users, unstable is stable enough for daily use. * Whether unstable should be used by ordinary users, is still somewhat controversial. Until this is officially resolved, enforcing this restriction would result in a minor freedom deprivation. * Some may enjoy having a constant stream of newly added bugs, or maybe not. Good day, Yotam Rubin
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:47:01PM +0200, Yotam wrote: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable Why shouldn't a developer encourage an ordinary user to run unstable? * It would speed up the bug finding process. (Don't mention testing, please) * For most users, unstable is stable enough for daily use. * Whether unstable should be used by ordinary users, is still somewhat controversial. Until this is officially resolved, enforcing this restriction would result in a minor freedom deprivation. * Some may enjoy having a constant stream of newly added bugs, or maybe not. Agreed. Bitching about problems in unstable is bad. Running unstable is not necessarily evil. We really should continue to leave such disgression up to developers, as to whether they will encourage others to run unstable, for example. A case where it might make sense to encourage someone to run unstable is if it fixes a major bug or introduces features that they need and the developer thinks that they are resonably competant. pgpalZyjUYsJE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
** On Jan 08, Aaron Lehmann scribbled: On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:35:51AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: Now that you and Eray have publically complained about the team's slowness, that means that after you complete the NM process, you both be joining the NM team to help your fellow developers get processed quicker, right? I'm not being sarcastic, my initial account manager who did the interviews and stuff had just completed the process a few months ago, so I assume you'll be joining the new maintainer team just like he did. The problem I'm facing is that my account has not been created. If once Same for me... My application was accepted in September, I applied in June - the only thing missing is the account. I have 8 packages waiting to be uploaded, one more to overtake from the current maintainer (he could/would sponsor it, but I prefer to wait till I'm legally in Debian) - all of them are actively maintained, used etc. but aren't in Debian per se. Before somebody steps forward and claims that I'm whining, I'm not - it's just a bit discouraging. We read many speeches here about taking part in the community life, contributing to Debian instead of talking, whining etc. - but it's rather hard to contribute anything when the doors are closed. It's not that I think the DAM or whoever in the NM team is not suited for this task, no, I'm just wondering whether they might need some help/encouragement? [snip] The DAM is quite busy, and I sympathize with him. However, once allowed to I would voulenteer to aid him with his duties to expedite the processes. Lamentably, I have no time to process NMs but if there's any other thing I could do, I'd be more than glad to. marek -- Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer /* A completely unrelated fortune */ Laugh while you can, monkey-boy. -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo pgpiHCKrXv4oZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior [new maintainer waiting period]
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vince Mulhollon wrote: Yes, it took me about a year's wait also. I created my pgp key on Dec. 27, 1997. 2 weeks later, I was a developer. Granted, this was before the closing, and the reorganization, but even for that time frame, that was fast. What I'm trying to say is that if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would benefit the project, you will be accepted. BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z? -END GEEK CODE BLOCK- BEGIN PGP INFO Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID 67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG -END PGP INFO- ps: I did the above during the bo-hamm glibc 2.0 recompile. I recompiled 3-4 packages per night for half a week or so, posting nighly updated to this mailing list. I had a good portion of the list rallying for my inclusion.
Re: Developer Behavior
On 20010108T084511-0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: The DAM is quite busy, and I sympathize with him. However, once allowed to I would voulenteer to aid him with his duties to expedite the processes. I doubt that a fresh developer would be allowed to take on such a vulnerable position as the DAM. You'd have to be quite extraordinary to achieve that. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% Keep the Deja Archive Alive! http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote: Agreed. Bitching about problems in unstable is bad. Running unstable is not necessarily evil. Just to make sure everyone understands, bitching about unstable bugs is bad. Finding and reporting unstable bugs is ok. BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z? -END GEEK CODE BLOCK- BEGIN PGP INFO Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID 67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG -END PGP INFO-
Re: Developer Behavior [new maintainer waiting period]
** On Jan 08, Adam Heath scribbled: On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vince Mulhollon wrote: Yes, it took me about a year's wait also. I created my pgp key on Dec. 27, 1997. 2 weeks later, I was a developer. Granted, this was before the closing, and the reorganization, but even for that time frame, that was fast. What I'm trying to say is that if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would benefit the project, you will be accepted. Hmm... http://debian.vip.net.pl/caudium, http://debian.vip.net.pl/caudium-unstable - does that prove _anything_ about me? I guess not and the NM process is what there's needed to confirm whether the applicant can do anything good for the project or not and the person to judge that is the person assigned to the applicant. Having said that, I want to ask what did you mean by writing the above statement? marek -- Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer /* A completely unrelated fortune */ Die, v.: To stop sinning suddenly. -- Elbert Hubbard pgpNyTDUpDVpO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote: Some Eray quotes, one paragraph of advice for Eray, and a possibly useful idea at the end for everyone. I think you are grossly overestimating Eray's desire to work well with others, his ability to contribute anything of substance Debian, or both. He's promised before to write code to back up some of grandiose ideas (at one point saying something to the effect that he wouldn't get involved in a big discussion again until he had working code to demonstrate). He has fallen through. He's promised before to submit more informative and better-researched bug reports. He continues to fail to do so. As you noted, he holds others to a standard of conduct to which he regards himself immune. He is unwilling to hold even non-concrete discussions in a semantic context appropriate for the general body of Debian Developers, instead preferring his own private definitions for words, and drawing things out interminably with those who show patience with him until they finally tire of linguistic and philosophical shell games. He plays fast and loose with the truth, for instance justifying his action at time A based on the events at time B, where A precedes B. This is just plain stupid; either Eray is, or he thinks everyone else is. Finally, he is just generally annoying. Some of these faults, among others, we can (and do) tolerate among other developers, because they actually make contributions to the Debian Project, and there tend to be areas within which one can have a rational discussion with them. I put up with other developers venting their spleens if they'll put up with me doing the same, and this approach seems to work well. (Some folks have such hot spots that you stay away from them, such as discussing spam-prevention policies with me or Craig Sanders, the possible non-divine status of anything Emacs with Manoj, etc.) However with Eray everything appears to be a hot spot -- if you challenge or correct him on any point whatsoever, he does one of three things: * babbles on incoherently, totally ignoring your point * whines, bitches, moans, and complains that you are not fit to be a Debian developer * utters some token apology or acknowledgement, and then proceeds as if you hadn't made a point in the first place, leaving his own behavior completely unchanged I don't know if it's solipsism, narcissism, or just general immaturity, but I don't think Eray is quite ready to make any meaningful contributions to the Debian project. Perhaps he is better off working by himself on things like GNU sather, and should leave the Debian packaging to someone who can interface effectively with other Debian developers a measurable part of the time. -- G. Branden Robinson | Measure with micrometer, Debian GNU/Linux| mark with chalk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | cut with axe, http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell. pgpcy212UNrxK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior [new maintainer waiting period]
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Marek Habersack wrote: ** On Jan 08, Adam Heath scribbled: On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vince Mulhollon wrote: Yes, it took me about a year's wait also. I created my pgp key on Dec. 27, 1997. 2 weeks later, I was a developer. Granted, this was before the closing, and the reorganization, but even for that time frame, that was fast. What I'm trying to say is that if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would benefit the project, you will be accepted. Hmm... http://debian.vip.net.pl/caudium, http://debian.vip.net.pl/caudium-unstable - does that prove _anything_ about me? I guess not and the NM process is what there's needed to confirm whether the applicant can do anything good for the project or not and the person to judge that is the person assigned to the applicant. Having said that, I want to ask what did you mean by writing the above statement? Note that I did not flaunt my deeds to the new maintainer team. My nightly emails would have been a part of a normal developer updating his fellow maintainers. I was perfectly content to keep all those debs in a staging area, while I waited for an account, as I knew the work would eventually be placed in debian. To restate, I did the work, not because I wanted to get in to debian, but because the work had to be done, and no one else was working on those packages at the time.~ BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z? -END GEEK CODE BLOCK- BEGIN PGP INFO Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID 67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG -END PGP INFO-
Re: Developer Behavior
Vince Mulhollon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that you and Eray have publically complained about the team's slowness, that means that after you complete the NM process, you both be joining the NM team to help your fellow developers get processed quicker, right? I'm not being sarcastic, my initial account manager who did the interviews and stuff had just completed the process a few months ago, so I assume you'll be joining the new maintainer team just like he did. I certainly intend to volunteer; I've had two AMs so far and extremely long delays with both of them, and would like to help get other people through a little more quickly than that. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Behavior [new maintainer waiting period]
** On Jan 08, Adam Heath scribbled: [snip] Hmm... http://debian.vip.net.pl/caudium, http://debian.vip.net.pl/caudium-unstable - does that prove _anything_ about me? I guess not and the NM process is what there's needed to confirm whether the applicant can do anything good for the project or not and the person to judge that is the person assigned to the applicant. Having said that, I want to ask what did you mean by writing the above statement? Note that I did not flaunt my deeds to the new maintainer team. My nightly neither do I do that... It's just that I _really_ want to work and contribute to Debian and being a de-facto developer but not _Debian_ developer my contributions are very limited. I have maintained the above packages for quite some time and posted to this list only _once_ - it was an ITP which passed without echo. One would expect some kind of reaction - go away, ok, you can do that, no, don't do that etc. etc. OK, I'm going off topic :-))) Anyhow, my problem is that I have something (and possibly more) to contribute, I have a will to contribute, I have the skills to contribute but have no way to contribute. And this is the _only_ problem I have wrt Debian. emails would have been a part of a normal developer updating his fellow maintainers. I was perfectly content to keep all those debs in a staging area, while I waited for an account, as I knew the work would eventually be placed in debian. Well, I've been waiting for so long and I'll wait more, but that's not the problem we should discuss. The problem is why does it take so long? Wouldn't it be good to add additional sorting measure to applicants that have been accepted? Just take a look at how many packages they created/maintain (outside of debian, of course) install those packages, take a look at their quality etc. and then, based on those _technical_ criteria, file a vote with DAM on that maintainer? Even in a democratic system there are priorities and the Debian priority wrt NMs should be the technical skills of the person being investigated. The other things like attitude, communication capability, philosophy will come up when the person is in Debian whether we like it or not... To restate, I did the work, not because I wanted to get in to debian, but because the work had to be done, and no one else was working on those packages at the time.~ I can only say I did the same with the above (and more) packages. But since I've applied to become a Debian developer I would expect and wish them to get into Debian... marek -- Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer /* A completely unrelated fortune */ Man is the best computer we can put aboard a spacecraft ... and the only one that can be mass produced with unskilled labor. -- Wernher von Braun pgptnujVZB2hj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior [new maintainer waiting period]
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Marek Habersack wrote: Note that I did not flaunt my deeds to the new maintainer team. My nightly neither do I do that... It's just that I _really_ want to work and contribute to Debian and being a de-facto developer but not _Debian_ developer my contributions are very limited. I have maintained the above packages for quite some time and posted to this list only _once_ - it was an ITP which passed without echo. One would expect some kind of reaction - go away, ok, you can do that, no, don't do that etc. etc. OK, I'm going off topic :-))) Anyhow, my problem is that I have something (and possibly more) to contribute, I have a will to contribute, I have the skills to contribute but have no way to contribute. And this is the _only_ problem I have wrt Debian. One wave in an ocean will be missed. A gentle, blowing breeze, will get the boats going. However, a full gale wind will not be helpful. Anyways, this sub-thread has gone on long enough. I just posted this last time because I thought I came up with a good saying. :) BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK Version: 3.12 GCS d- s: a-- c+++ UL P+ L !E W+ M o+ K- W--- !O M- !V PS-- PE++ Y+ PGP++ t* 5++ X+ tv b+ D++ G e h*! !r z? -END GEEK CODE BLOCK- BEGIN PGP INFO Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]Finger Print | KeyID 67 01 42 93 CA 37 FB 1E63 C9 80 1D 08 CF 84 0A | DE656B05 PGP AD46 C888 F587 F8A3 A6DA 3261 8A2C 7DC2 8BD4 A489 | 8BD4A489 GPG -END PGP INFO-
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:54:07AM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote: | A case where it might make sense to encourage someone to run unstable | is if [...] the developer thinks that they are resonably competant. I think that this is the key. If the user is competent enough there is no harm suggesting to them that they run unstable/testing with the usual caveats (it is *unstable* after all). For ordinary users, however, I think that stable should be recommended. Note that *ordinary* users aren't power users and probably aren't competent enough to deal with the bugs that unstable will inevitably bring. -D
Re: Developer Behavior [new maintainer waiting period]
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:23:05AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: I created my pgp key on Dec. 27, 1997. 2 weeks later, I was a developer. Granted, this was before the closing, and the reorganization, but even for that time frame, that was fast. What I'm trying to say is that if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would benefit the project, you will be accepted. [...] ps: I did the above during the bo-hamm glibc 2.0 recompile. I recompiled 3-4 packages per night for half a week or so, posting nighly updated to this mailing list. I had a good portion of the list rallying for my inclusion. Yes, and thanks to the ensuing bizarre phenomemon of doogiebugs, it is a cause that many folks have come to regret. wicked grin, duck, and run -- G. Branden Robinson | I came, I saw, she conquered. The Debian GNU/Linux| original Latin seems to have been [EMAIL PROTECTED] | garbled. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpmDiRpupyna.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:17:42 Vince Mulhollon wrote: 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable. For the record I object to any Code of Condust that includes this clause. btw I'm a Ham operator and I recognise the value of the rules we operate by. I don't see any connection between this clause and anything related to Ham radio. johno
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Marek Habersack wrote: Same for me... My application was accepted in September, I applied in June - the only thing missing is the account. I have 8 packages waiting to be uploaded, one more to overtake from the current maintainer (he could/would sponsor it, but I prefer to wait till I'm legally in Debian) - all of them are actively maintained, used etc. but aren't in Debian per se. Before I don't understand your problem: I maintained 17 or 18 packages that were all in unstable and I had done at about a dozen uploads for Debian QA and a complete upload of the teTeX packages before my account was created two months ago. Where is the big problem if you send your packages to a sponsor instead of uploading it directly that forces you not to upload a package you have prepared? somebody steps forward and claims that I'm whining, I'm not - it's just a bit discouraging. We read many speeches here about taking part in the ... Why do many applicants think they must get a Debian account before they can really start working? It might sometimes take a bit more time until a package is installed in the archive, but you can upload new and adopted packages through a sponsor, work on the boot floppies and many other things without a Debian account. marek cu, Adrian -- A No uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a Yes merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. -- Mahatma Ghandi
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vince Mulhollon wrote: ... 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable. ... Tou want to forbid that: - I run unstable on a production server even if I know what I'm doing - I tell my best friend: Unstable currently runs fine and if you want you can give it a try. That would be the first time where Debian would try to regulate what I do in the time when I'm not working for Debian and at that point I would immediately leave Debian. cu, Adrian -- A No uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a Yes merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. -- Mahatma Ghandi
Re: Developer Behavior
to: Subject: Re: Developer Behavior 01/08/2001 02:37 PM On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 16:17:42 Vince Mulhollon wrote: 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable. For the record I object to any Code of Condust that includes this clause. btw I'm a Ham operator and I recognise the value of the rules we operate by. I don't see any connection between this clause and anything related to Ham radio. johno -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Behavior
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:52:25PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vince Mulhollon wrote: ... 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on unstable and will never encourage a non-developer to run unstable. ... Tou want to forbid that: - I run unstable on a production server even if I know what I'm doing - I tell my best friend: Unstable currently runs fine and if you want you can give it a try. That would be the first time where Debian would try to regulate what I do in the time when I'm not working for Debian and at that point I would immediately leave Debian. I'm no Debian Developer, but I've been running unstable on production environments for about 3 years now. And I sleep very well at nights, thank you very much. I think you guys have gotten so used to Linux's rock solid stability and Debian stable's total we know all 15,000 packages play nice with each other solidity you've forgotten the rest of the IT world lives with production service packs upgrades from source vendors that totally break their OS environments(Windows NT service pack upgrades do that regularly). Debian unstable(or testing), may not be distribution you want your heart monitor to be running on when you're at the hospital, but it's far from lacking production quality. -Mark
Re: Developer Behavior [new maintainer waiting period]
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:23:05AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: What I'm trying to say is that if you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you would benefit the project, you will be accepted. All I stated was that it was less efficient for many people to do work through sponsors. Well, let's do an indirect proof. Assuming I would not benefit the project much, uploading my packages takes time by REAL Debian developers who could be doing actual work that would benefit Debian. Getting an account would prevent me from bothering sponsors with my silly packages. So, whether I would benefit the project or not, it would benefit the project to create an account for me. Keep in mind that I don't take it _this_ serriously. The topic came up and I commented that I was in the same situation. I'm still waiting patiently and don't want to make a fuss. I only wish I did not have to bother sponsors when I do have the mental capacity to upload a package. I've even offered to help expedite the new-maintainer process if accepted into Debian. My offer has been to create accounts, since that seems like where one of the major bottlenecks is, but if this responsibility can not be entrusted to brand-new developers (which is likely the case), I would appreciate suggestions on other ways I could help. Thanks, Aaron Lehmann pgpOmXfUMfXld.pgp Description: PGP signature
