On Sun, 2023-07-16 at 12:54 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 12:42:11 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > In the meanwhile, I'll immediately revert the sabotage. > > Both of you, please don't turn this into an NMU war in the archive: > that doesn't benefit anyone. I would have preferred it if Adam had not > immediately uploaded a 0-day revert, but preserving the status quo from > bookworm is not the worst state to be in while we discuss this.
No, we should just have made a decision a long time ago and not go back and forth the entire time. That we do not do that shows lack of leadership in Debian. (And yes, you can reconsider stuff, but the barrier to stop a process and reconsider it again should not be zero and probably higher the later one does block progress.) > If Adam's concerns about this change are valid, then we should address > them, either by doing something different in debootstrap or by reporting > bugs against affected packages. I guess Adam could go ahead with the GR he wanted to bring up the last time he did NMUs this way (for reverting enabling usrmerge by default on upgrades). I would like to ask Adam to stop interfering with usrmerge until that long announced GR is there (and note that if we waited for that GR to happen as Adam demanded then we would still be waiting). > If Adam's concerns about this change turn out to be unfounded, then we > should reinstate my change (as NMU'd by Luca) in a calm and considered > way, and all we will have lost is a few days of progress and a few bytes > of changelog. That is false in so far as that only considers technical changes we get. However we also lose more and more energy/motivation/* even if we eventually go ahead as planned, i.e., social costs are not considered, but should be (IMHO). Ansgar