Re: About NM and Next Release
[on list, this time. sorry] On Saturday 09 August 2003 04:48, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > You can talk but you can't second a proposal. You somewhat can (or > could) make a proposal since that isn't signed and normaly noone > bothered to check if one was a DD. But thats more of a backdoor than > the proper way of proposing chnages. > > Actually pushing some changes into affect becomes harder because you > first have to find some DD to push the changes forward for you. Don't know if you don't overrate these things - if you're idea is a good one, it should be easy enough to find DDs to support it (especially if you're offering to do most of the work). Most changes in Debian that are proposed and not accepted are shot down not because people agree but it doesn't get implemented, but because many people have different opinions on how this thing should be handled. You get these mega-threads without any resolution coming out of it - and I guess even if you are a DD, you won't introduce a change in Debian if support is weak. Some real-world examples where you feel you can't propose/implement a change would be nice. But from what I saw in the debates after woody release about changing testing or such things I have the feeling that many if not most things were proposed by DDs and not by outsiders. Very few of these things (if any) have been implemented. greetings -- vbi -- Debian is the Jedi operating system: "Always two there are, a master and an apprentice". -- Simon Richter on debian-devel pgpwVdIZn6c8q.pgp Description: signature
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 05:34:20AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > If you actually dig into the list, you'll find that many of the bugs > with patches fall into the same category as these two. Most of the > rest actually need significant attention, not NMUs (I usually remove > the patch tag from those when I spot them). Sounds like a reasonable practice to remove the tag. > > > Unless they wanted to co-maintain the package - and a non-developer > > > could do all the important stuff for that anyway (bug triage). > > > > Can one get the same list of packages with patches but sorted by the > > time since the last activity? Or date of the patch? Or a list of > > packages with patches for an older version? > > These things are all doable but difficult, and usually involve some > scripting to extract the information you want; I've done it once or > twice. But it's somewhat imprecise. Someone with experience of the BTS code should script this and add it to the webpage so NMs and DDs can easily find packages worth investing time. Going through bugreports and skipping 80% because one can't help them in any way doesn't encourage to help. Esspecially some mechanism that checks the version of a package against the version a patch was for would be good. The BTS could even send a mail to the submitter saying a new version was uploaded, please check your patch. > > Non-DDs could pick up an old patch and see to it that it works with a > > newer version. Might be something they could get get credits for on > > their application. > > > > Is there a space on the application where sponsors or maintainer who > > see good work being done by the NM can give comments. Surely the DAM > > can't follow all sponsored uploads or patches send to the bts so he > > might easily overlook an productive NM. > > It's the AMs role to collate this sort of information; people can mail > comments to them (the AM should actively seek it out as well), and > applicants are always asked what they are doing/planning to do from > the outset. Can the AM add it to the application? Why not show such comments on the applications webpage? Have a "comments" field just like the "packages" field or something. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Friday 08 August 2003 05:23, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > Policy changes, voting and the internal discussions all need > > membership. Having NMs hang in limbo without due cause is denying > > them the right to those. > > Voting yes. But to me it seems that most issues are discussed on the > open lists - I am very much interested in the inner workings of > Debian, and I sometimes particitpate in those discussions. I never > felt that I was ignored just because IANADD. You can talk but you can't second a proposal. You somewhat can (or could) make a proposal since that isn't signed and normaly noone bothered to check if one was a DD. But thats more of a backdoor than the proper way of proposing chnages. Actually pushing some changes into affect becomes harder because you first have to find some DD to push the changes forward for you. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
Hi, On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 11:39:25PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:38:43PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:34:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > > > altruim, [sic] > > > > > > Self-delusion. (It's invariably a form of 'By doing this I can better > > > fit the sort of person I would like to think I am'. People who > > > disagree with this interpretation are probably committing it. Get out > > > of that if you can!) > > > > Oh true master, please tell us how you obtained your great wisdom and > > enlighten us, pityable souls. > > Two pounds of flax. Most revered guru, I did not ask, "What is the Buddha", nor are you Joshu. I am seeking the source of your profound teaching, that no act of man can come from altruism or compassion, but that the one true motive is to serve the ego, and that all man does is invariably means to this end. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Re: creating official Contributors (was Re: About NM and Next Release)
Stephen Frost wrote: > * Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >>How about moving from the one-step application (one is non-dd or dd) two a >>two >>stage process: introduce the 'Debian Contributor' brand with very easy entry >>level, and only DC's (older than a month or something like that - >>fast-forwarding of course possible when there's a reason) would qualify to >>apply for maintainership. > This idea seems interesting. It adds a bit more than what exists I can only speak for myself, but I'm perfectly alright with the present system in this respect and my guess'd be that others are as well. Looking at the threads on -devel, most of the complaints seem to be about the process after AM approval. So probably, you could just allow anyone past that "debian contributor" or "dd aspirant". Don't know whether this helps at all, though. After getting over the fact that people having "becoming a dd" as a goal will (likely) be dissapointed at one time or another, I'd say the process is quite OK. After applying once (trying what happens if you skip some checkboxes) and expiring in the earliest of stages, I've found for myself that I might just as well wait until I get invited. In fact, it might even be that the process is too easy: Sometimes I'm getting the impression that some applicants getting AM approval do so while their packages aren't really above average. But then, trends in the quality of Debian are quite another matter. Cheers T. pgpqrouzZf3L9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 23:39:25 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Two pounds of flax. Oh, you play A Tale in the Desert? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpijFulhTfpP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:38:43PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:34:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > altruim, [sic] > > > > Self-delusion. (It's invariably a form of 'By doing this I can better > > fit the sort of person I would like to think I am'. People who > > disagree with this interpretation are probably committing it. Get out > > of that if you can!) > > Oh true master, please tell us how you obtained your great wisdom and > enlighten us, pityable souls. Two pounds of flax. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpf3hDfIa1Ox.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:59:52 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:32:07AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > Start with the things about Debian which are distinctly different from > other projects. You should be able to find some things which you want > to do which depend on these things. If not... well, why *are* you here? Would that fall under the preview of liking Debian? > I write software because I can, and I release it as free software > because that makes it better over time. Others will vary (I'm not in > the mood for writing an essay on the subject). Yes, but your choices were determined by what you liked. If not then you're the odd individual. Why do I write free software? Because I believe in giving back to the community that I've gotten so much from. I believe that the ideals set forth coupled with the fact it doesn't cost me anything in the short or long run means I stand to lose nothing and gain a while lot. But let's continue it. Why did I write the program I wrote? Because I like sa-exim. Because I like how it works and needed a tool to help out on area of it's operation. Why did I write it in wxPython using Boa-Constructor? Because I like Python. wxPython seemed to be an easy and fast way to write what I needed. Boa-Constructor helped in that. In the end I had fun working on the code and still do so even though the program is to a level where it suits my needs. So to break it down into keywords. Community, ideals, value, like, need and fun. "Because it was there" doesn't enter into the picture. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpIwdrQddWgP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
Hi, On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:34:26PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > altruim, [sic] > > Self-delusion. (It's invariably a form of 'By doing this I can better > fit the sort of person I would like to think I am'. People who > disagree with this interpretation are probably committing it. Get out > of that if you can!) Oh true master, please tell us how you obtained your great wisdom and enlighten us, pityable souls. Cure us from our delusional hopes of transcending the slavery to our perceived self interests through the idea of freedom of choice. We will be eternally grateful. Or at least entertained. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Re: About NM and Next Release
I demand that Steve Lamb may or may not have written... > On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:52:14 +0200 > Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> OTOH, most editors can be configured as to which characters they consider >> to be quotes. > True, but reflow across multiple levels tends to break when one has > different quote characters to contend with. Your text editor should be able to cope with different quote characters. If it doesn't then maybe you should consider patching it or using another one. FWIW, I've written code to handle this kind of thing, though there's one /small/ problem wrt portability: it's in ARM assembly language... ;-) -- | Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington, | woody, sarge, | youmustbejoking | Northumberland | RISC OS | demon co uk | Toon Army | http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/progs.linux.html> Celeron: Could Everyone Leave Expendable Resources Out Now?
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:33:08PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > What we need is a database with simple mailing list function (similar to > PTS) where willing sponsors for a certain package can subscribe and > sponsorees with much motivation can send diffs for the next version > upgrade. Easy to review and check, easy to build and upload. And easy to > comment and communicate with other sponsors or co-maintainers. This idea isn't quite new. I have already offered opening a forum for such purpose at the mentors.debian.net project as many potential and real NMs have asked for one. Perhaps this is the time for someone to just offer it. That could at least simply communication between NMs, mentors and sponsors. One might argue that this isn't the classic mailing list approach to communicate but IMHO a web based forum is a good compromise between a database and a mailing list. Christoph -- ~ ~ ".signature" [Modified] 3 lines --100%--3,41 All
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 11:59:42AM -0600, Wesley J Landaker wrote: > On Friday 08 August 2003 10:59 am, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:32:07AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > Funny. I thought the FSF was, at least origionally, more or less > > > entirely about self-interest, altruism, and politics. > > > > The organisation might have been founded for those reasons, although > > I think it was primarily politics. I don't think you'll find much (if > > any) GNU code that was written because of them. Most of it was > > written because "I need a foo. I don't *have* a foo, but I *do* know > > how to make one". > > Eh?! The FSF is *all* about altruism and politics. How is that different to what I just said? (Other than overemphasising 'altruism') > The FSF and the GNU project is all about This is unrelated, but using words which are closer to reality: > ideals, Arguments. > politics, Reasons for arguments. > altruim, [sic] Self-delusion. (It's invariably a form of 'By doing this I can better fit the sort of person I would like to think I am'. People who disagree with this interpretation are probably committing it. Get out of that if you can!) > self-interest, Well yeah, self-interest. [Back to the subject at hand...] None of which puts code on the table (except maybe self-interest, if it's a good interest). Do not confuse the FSF (which is a political organisation) with the GNU project (which is a group of coders). Much like you shouldn't confuse SPI (which is a nod in the direction of capitalist governments) with Debian. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpOGMfSHidLl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 05:59:52PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:32:07AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > > * want to contribute something to a project they respect > > > > * want to help out Debian users > > > > * want to help promote the goals of Debian > > > > > > These are bad reasons. > > > > They are also the only reasons anyone would want to contribute to Debian, > > rather than to, say, NetBSD. Or any other open-source OS you might care > > to name. "Because it's there" may be a reason to code, but it produces no > > motivation whatsoever to contribute to Debian when there are MUCH easier > > places to contribute to. > > Start with the things about Debian which are distinctly different from > other projects. You should be able to find some things which you want > to do which depend on these things. If not... well, why *are* you here? In my case, it's the political infrastructure and charter. The Social Contract, the DFSG, the Constitution. That means, I guess, "want to contribute something to a project they respect" - at least, for why I contribute *to Debian*, rather than another project. Why I contribute at all is covered below. > > > I don't think you're going to get it, either. It's basically the same > > > question as "Why do people write free software?", and if you come up > > > with "altruism", "politics", or "respect" then you're barking up the > > > wrong tree. > > > > Funny. I thought the FSF was, at least origionally, more or less entirely > > about self-interest, altruism, and politics. > > The organisation might have been founded for those reasons, although I > think it was primarily politics. I don't think you'll find much (if > any) GNU code that was written because of them. Most of it was written > because "I need a foo. I don't *have* a foo, but I *do* know how to > make one". That's why the code was written - but it doesn't explain why it was contributed to the FSF. Giving over a copyright is not a small thing. > > So tell us - why *do* people write free software? > > I write software because I can, and I release it as free software > because that makes it better over time. Others will vary (I'm not in > the mood for writing an essay on the subject). Whereas I write it because it solves a problem I have, or because it interests me, and I give it away because I hope that others might benefit from it (even if just having a few moments of entertainment, in some cases) just as I have benefitted from the people who did it before me. That would be 'altruism'. Not as a reason to write it, but as a reason to give it away. I do not, and have never, subscribed to the theory that all altruism is merely well-concealed self-interest (though much of it very well may be). I also write code that I don't give away. Mostly either because I don't think anyone else who would ever need it would manage to find it, among the swamp that is the Internet, or because I intend to sell the code (or already have a contract to do so), and I certainly like to be able to eat, as much as the next developer, and employers who will let you open-source the code are still relatively rare (often for good reason). -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpKHUUO17WCk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Friday 08 August 2003 10:59 am, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:32:07AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > Funny. I thought the FSF was, at least origionally, more or less > > entirely about self-interest, altruism, and politics. > > The organisation might have been founded for those reasons, although > I think it was primarily politics. I don't think you'll find much (if > any) GNU code that was written because of them. Most of it was > written because "I need a foo. I don't *have* a foo, but I *do* know > how to make one". Eh?! The FSF is *all* about altruism and politics. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html particularly http://www.fsf.org/gnu/manifesto.html If you haven't, listen to the free software song: http://gnuwww.epfl.ch/music/free-software-song.html The FSF and the GNU project is all about ideals, politics, altruim, self-interest, helping your neighbor, etc. If there are people who contribute to it that DON'T believe in those things, well, that's their choice, but it doesn't change what the project is all about. > > So tell us - why *do* people write free software? > > I write software because I can, and I release it as free software > because that makes it better over time. Others will vary (I'm not in > the mood for writing an essay on the subject). While most software might be written because you have an itch to scratch, that doesn't explain why people give it away as free software. I release all software I create as free software of the common philosophical beliefs that I share with the FSF. Simply put: If I make something cool for myself, I want to share it so that other people can enjoy it too. I'm nice. I like to share. I want to help people. And change the world while I'm at it. -- Wesley J. Landaker - [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpKy6Sc95xcx.pgp Description: signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:32:07AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > * want to contribute something to a project they respect > > > * want to help out Debian users > > > * want to help promote the goals of Debian > > > > These are bad reasons. > > They are also the only reasons anyone would want to contribute to Debian, > rather than to, say, NetBSD. Or any other open-source OS you might care > to name. "Because it's there" may be a reason to code, but it produces no > motivation whatsoever to contribute to Debian when there are MUCH easier > places to contribute to. Start with the things about Debian which are distinctly different from other projects. You should be able to find some things which you want to do which depend on these things. If not... well, why *are* you here? > > I don't think you're going to get it, either. It's basically the same > > question as "Why do people write free software?", and if you come up > > with "altruism", "politics", or "respect" then you're barking up the > > wrong tree. > > Funny. I thought the FSF was, at least origionally, more or less entirely > about self-interest, altruism, and politics. The organisation might have been founded for those reasons, although I think it was primarily politics. I don't think you'll find much (if any) GNU code that was written because of them. Most of it was written because "I need a foo. I don't *have* a foo, but I *do* know how to make one". > So tell us - why *do* people write free software? I write software because I can, and I release it as free software because that makes it better over time. Others will vary (I'm not in the mood for writing an essay on the subject). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpP3s7zGtlfl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: creating official Contributors (was Re: About NM and Next Release)
* Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > How about moving from the one-step application (one is non-dd or dd) two a > two > stage process: introduce the 'Debian Contributor' brand with very easy entry > level, and only DC's (older than a month or something like that - > fast-forwarding of course possible when there's a reason) would qualify to > apply for maintainership. This idea seems interesting. It adds a bit more than what exists already though not that much. Many of these things can be grabbed from existing pages (bugs.debian.org/email, packages.qa.debian.org, etc). Perhaps on the nm.debian.org page there could be links for each NM to stuff they've submitted to the BTS, packages they're maintainer or in the uploaders list for, etc. The only problem with this is that there isn't a tag for 'ContributionsFrom:' or something that could then also be checked. Perhaps a method could be defined in the changelog to list where some contributions came from and a page could be set up which tracks this for people. By then going to nm.debian.org and clicking on a user you'd get links and perhaps a summary of their BTS entries, packages they help maintain explicitly and packages they've contributed to (along with what those contributions were). Thoughts? Stephen pgp6GlE9THLVz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:21:48AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:46:20PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Anybody who has to ask "Why should I/we/they contribute?" is not > > >suitable for Debian. (The "answer", incidentally, is "because we can" > > >or "because it's there", or some other variation; it is a goal in > > >itself, and not a means to an end) > > > > OK, now *that* is just nonsense. People contribute because they: > > > > * use Debian and want to make it better > > * want to do something which is made easier by contributing to Debian > > These are passable, and a variation on the same theme. The first reason is an excellent reason to keep a private repository. The second reason seems to be routinely rejected when brought up by anyone in the NM queue as being an issue. > > * want to contribute something to a project they respect > > * want to help out Debian users > > * want to help promote the goals of Debian > > These are bad reasons. They are also the only reasons anyone would want to contribute to Debian, rather than to, say, NetBSD. Or any other open-source OS you might care to name. "Because it's there" may be a reason to code, but it produces no motivation whatsoever to contribute to Debian when there are MUCH easier places to contribute to. > > I'm sure there are other reasons. > > > > "Because it's there" is a non-reason. OK, maybe it was a > > reasonable (if silly) answer for why to climb Mt. Everest. But Debian > > isn't a natural feature of the landscape, and it certainly isn't an > > exceptional and notable one. (Real reasons for climbing Mt. > > Everest included "I like climbing mountains" and "It's the tallest > > mountain in the world", which were both implicitly understood.) > > > > That 'reason' isn't going to get *anyone* to contribute to Debian. It > > might get them to climb Mt. Everest, I suppose. > > That's funny. Those were all things I've heard from people who've been > with the project for years. > > I don't think you're going to get it, either. It's basically the same > question as "Why do people write free software?", and if you come up > with "altruism", "politics", or "respect" then you're barking up the > wrong tree. Funny. I thought the FSF was, at least origionally, more or less entirely about self-interest, altruism, and politics. There is certainly a self-interest to the early adopter, a risk taken (publishing free code) that one might hope to gain from (others publish free code that you can use in exchange). At this point, however, there is very little reason for self-interest to drive such things; the amount of code available is so vast that nearly anything you want can be found, cobbled together, or otherwise made with little effort. The only real exception is completely new stuff; even that, however, is often available quickly. These days, leeches don't actually write free code, even in the hopes of getting more free code; they already have more than they could ever realistically use, available. So tell us - why *do* people write free software? -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,''`. Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter: :' : `. `' `- pgpmDwaRaNtDL.pgp Description: PGP signature
creating official Contributors (was Re: About NM and Next Release)
Not wanting to start yet another thread, but I not knowing where to tack it on... How about moving from the one-step application (one is non-dd or dd) two a two stage process: introduce the 'Debian Contributor' brand with very easy entry level, and only DC's (older than a month or something like that - fast-forwarding of course possible when there's a reason) would qualify to apply for maintainership. How would that work: - every DD, or perhaps any two DDs, can name new DCs - there is an DC database, where DCs can maintain their track history what they have done in Debian (linkls to mailing list archive & bug reports). Important here: DCs have to maintain this themselves. The two main purposes are that (1) once the DC wants to become DD, the people in the NM process can easily see what the person has done in Debian so far[1]. (2) when a DD feels that there are some tasks to do / searches a co-maintainer / whatever he can spam the DCs - they are, after all, people specifically looking for more work ;-) Oh yes, and (3) since a DC has already proved his ability to contribute to Debian in a meaningful way, maybe maintainers will be less prone to just ignore contributions (from that thread I feel that *is* a problem. But I also see that opinions differ on this.) - DC status automatically expires when somebody doesn't add to his DCDB entry for more than a year (or whatever). This is the same as with rejected applications: the candidate can reapply when he starts to contribute again. - the problem of people hanging on to their DC status by adding nonsense entries to the db just so it doesn't expire shouldn't be grave: when looking at these DB entries, anybody should be able to see quite quickly that this DC didn't really contribute. DC status is, of course, a vanity thing, too, but I guess with not giving out mail addresses, homepage (beyond the DCDB entry) and accounts, it's usefulnes for bragging about it is somewhat limited. How would this change things? Vanity applications would probably be stopped at the DC stage already, so the people in the NM process don't take that load. OTOH the apparent problem at the DAM stage wouldn't get away. Just my ¤.02 on a hot Friday evening... -- vbi [1] obviously, the information needs to be taken with a grain of salt since each DC maintains his db entries himself (or her, of course). -- featured product: GNU Privacy Guard - http://gnupg.org pgpOcz9ujvoUx.pgp Description: signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 08:29:54AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:55:19PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > That, however, is not enough in and of itself. I *could* very well > > contribute to FreeBSD. I don't. Why? Because I don't like > > FreeBSD. I like Debian. You're misconstruing that the statement is > > "you like it therefore you should contribute" when it is is "I like > > it therefore I want to contribute". > > Actually, you have misconstrued it the other way. It really was "You > like it therefore you should contribute". I didn't take it that way, the statement seemed rather clear that it was a matter of liking the project and wanting to contribute to it, not a matter of feeling like one should. -- Jamin W. Collins To be nobody but yourself when the whole world is trying it's best night and day to make you everybody else is to fight the hardest battle any human being will fight. -- E.E. Cummings
Re: About NM and Next Release
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:52:14 +0200 > Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >| OTOH, most editors can be configured as to which characters they >| consider to be quotes. > > True, but reflow across multiple levels tends to break when one > has different quote characters to contend with. Only with broken readers/editors. -- ilmari
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:40:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Do you think any DD reads those? Do DDs care about Bugs with patches? > >And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. > ppp actually appears to be unmaintained. Many users requested essential > features like pppoa and kernel space pppoe support but the maintainer > never did it and has not released a new package in almost a year. > I would like to know from Russell if he plans to start working again > soon on ppp or would like to have a co-maintainer who will fix these and > other problems. > (If he is not interested then I'm determined to fork the package and > upload ppp-cvs.) Notice that pppoatm doesn't seem to be included in ppp-cvs. The patch currently in one of the two bug report (unless they were merged) is not ok. It works for pppoatm, but seem to break normal ppp operation, which is not ok. I know from my upstream of the unicorn ADSL drivers, that he worked on a pppoatm patch for mandrake, which could maybe be used. I have not much details about this though, and have not the time to look at this myself. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 20:40, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Do you think any DD reads those? Do DDs care about Bugs with patches? > >And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. > > ppp actually appears to be unmaintained. Many users requested essential > features like pppoa and kernel space pppoe support but the maintainer > never did it and has not released a new package in almost a year. > I would like to know from Russell if he plans to start working again > soon on ppp or would like to have a co-maintainer who will fix these and > other problems. > (If he is not interested then I'm determined to fork the package and > upload ppp-cvs.) I have not had enough time to work properly on ppp. I welcome a co-maintainer. I think that the best thing to do at the moment is to add the requested features to the main ppp package wherever possible, and to also have a ppp-cvs package which will focus more on bleeding-edge features. The ppp-cvs package would be based on the current CVS code plus any additional patches that are considered useful. Patches that are found to work well in ppp-cvs can then be committed to the CVS tree (I have CVS commit access). Marco, please upload new ppp or ppp-cvs packages to fit this scheme, I'll work with you on it as time permits. Also thanks for CCing me on the message, I generally just delete entire threads from my mailing-list folder when they appear to be endless flame-wars, so I only receive messages if CC'd to me directly as that makes them appear in my personal folder (which gets read much more carefully). PS pppoa was one of my original aims in taking over the ppp package... :( -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages 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/~russell/ My home page
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
On Aug 07, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Do you think any DD reads those? Do DDs care about Bugs with patches? >And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. ppp actually appears to be unmaintained. Many users requested essential features like pppoa and kernel space pppoe support but the maintainer never did it and has not released a new package in almost a year. I would like to know from Russell if he plans to start working again soon on ppp or would like to have a co-maintainer who will fix these and other problems. (If he is not interested then I'm determined to fork the package and upload ppp-cvs.) -- ciao, | Marco | [1178 cagsrNBdG73Ls]
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:33:24 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 04:21:42AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote: > > Membership is not about resources, its about community. > > Bullshit. Our "community" consists of heckling each other until we get > it right. This "heckling" is debians greatest problem. > Membership is about doing the damn work; I guess that's a > form of "resources". Membership is about doing the work for, and as a part of a COMMUNITY. Membership is not about building cathedrals for yourself. Glenn
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:33:24 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bullshit. Our "community" consists of heckling each other until we get > it right. Membership is about doing the damn work; I guess that's a > form of "resources". But I thought it was perfectly possible to perform work without membership. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpIvnAkb66xg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 04:21:42AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:21:48 +0100 > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think you're going to get it, either. It's basically the same > > question as "Why do people write free software?", and if you come up > > with "altruism", "politics", or "respect" then you're barking up the > > wrong tree. > > People contribute for many reasons, we dont need to define them. > > All that matters is that if a person intends to be making an ongoing > contribution to debian and they are trustworthy then they deserve to be > a dd. The relationship between these two things should be obvious. > Membership is not about resources, its about community. Bullshit. Our "community" consists of heckling each other until we get it right. Membership is about doing the damn work; I guess that's a form of "resources". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpRUcPAfd0Ad.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:21:48 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think you're going to get it, either. It's basically the same > question as "Why do people write free software?", and if you come up > with "altruism", "politics", or "respect" then you're barking up the > wrong tree. People contribute for many reasons, we dont need to define them. All that matters is that if a person intends to be making an ongoing contribution to debian and they are trustworthy then they deserve to be a dd. Membership is not about resources, its about community. Glenn
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 05:34:20AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > It's not like a developer could do anything more, in these two > > That being true still doesn't help non DDs to contribute. Indeed, but it also means that they are not reasons why people should be given accounts. > > cases. Any developer who NMUs a package with an active maintainer, to > > fix minor/wishlist bugs, should be repeatedly kicked in the head. So > > your argument kinda falls flat. If you are suggesting that you would > > NMU either of these packages to fix these bugs, then it suddenly > > becomes very clear to me why you do not have an account. > > No I wouldn't. Those two are bad examples for NMU'able debs. But the > list of debs with patches is very long. And a new DD might have more > time than the current ones that already have several packages they > maintain. If you actually dig into the list, you'll find that many of the bugs with patches fall into the same category as these two. Most of the rest actually need significant attention, not NMUs (I usually remove the patch tag from those when I spot them). > > Unless they wanted to co-maintain the package - and a non-developer > > could do all the important stuff for that anyway (bug triage). > > Can one get the same list of packages with patches but sorted by the > time since the last activity? Or date of the patch? Or a list of > packages with patches for an older version? These things are all doable but difficult, and usually involve some scripting to extract the information you want; I've done it once or twice. But it's somewhat imprecise. > Non-DDs could pick up an old patch and see to it that it works with a > newer version. Might be something they could get get credits for on > their application. > > Is there a space on the application where sponsors or maintainer who > see good work being done by the NM can give comments. Surely the DAM > can't follow all sponsored uploads or patches send to the bts so he > might easily overlook an productive NM. It's the AMs role to collate this sort of information; people can mail comments to them (the AM should actively seek it out as well), and applicants are always asked what they are doing/planning to do from the outset. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpHzCoj11LnV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:29:54 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, you have misconstrued it the other way. It really was "You > like it therefore you should contribute". No. There is a difference between these two statements: I like Debian therefore I should contribute. I like Debian therefore I want to contribute. As others have pointed out, you're way off base. So until you get the difference between those two this conversation is over between you and me. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpIZVax9cN4K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:55:19PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > (The "answer", incidentally, is "because we can" > > or "because it's there", or some other variation; it is a goal in > > itself, and not a means to an end) > > That, however, is not enough in and of itself. I *could* very well > contribute to FreeBSD. I don't. Why? Because I don't like FreeBSD. I like > Debian. You're misconstruing that the statement is "you like it therefore you > should contribute" when it is is "I like it therefore I want to contribute". Actually, you have misconstrued it the other way. It really was "You like it therefore you should contribute". > > > Neither. I am pointing out that someone liking a project is hardly a > > > reason to reject them out of hand. > > > An idea which you made up entirely on your own, and then attributed to > > me. So which is it? > > Uh, no. You're the one who wrote that someone liking Debian was a lousy > reason for them to join. Do you have trouble understanding why these two statements are different? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgppKoUnfEI4v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and next release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:58:10PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Andrew Suffield said: > >On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:56:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > >> Wrong. There have been specific technical things I wanted to do > >> which simply cannot be done easily as an outsider. >^^ > >> > >> Generally it's QA stuff. I'm doing it anyway, of course; it's just > >> slower and more tedious and discouraging. > > > >You just contradicted yourself. It's clearly not wrong - you *are* > No, I didn't contradict myself. Read what I said again carefully, > noticing the word which I pointed out for you. That word is 'easily'. > I *am* doing the work, but I am *not* doing it easily; I am instead > doing it with difficulty. Got it? And you've missed my point entirely. > >doing it anyway. So the system works as it is supposed to. > The system is supposed to make it hard for people to contribute? > That seems dumb. :-) > > OK, I admit to deliberately twisting your meaning a little in that last > paragraph, but I'm trying to make a point. "The system" actively > discourages people from contributing, and makes it hard for their > contributions to be used in a timely fashion. This seems bad to me. Actually it isn't. It helps to reduce the crap; if we allowed *anybody* to upload packages, then we'd have a lot more useless packages than we already do. Requiring at least some minimal effort means people will usually constrain themselves to things they actually think are worthwhile. But that's just a coincidental side-effect, not a cause. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgp8T4j4e9Xok.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:46:20PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Anybody who has to ask "Why should I/we/they contribute?" is not > >suitable for Debian. (The "answer", incidentally, is "because we can" > >or "because it's there", or some other variation; it is a goal in > >itself, and not a means to an end) > > OK, now *that* is just nonsense. People contribute because they: > > * use Debian and want to make it better > * want to do something which is made easier by contributing to Debian These are passable, and a variation on the same theme. > * want to contribute something to a project they respect > * want to help out Debian users > * want to help promote the goals of Debian These are bad reasons. > I'm sure there are other reasons. > > "Because it's there" is a non-reason. OK, maybe it was a > reasonable (if silly) answer for why to climb Mt. Everest. But Debian > isn't a natural feature of the landscape, and it certainly isn't an > exceptional and notable one. (Real reasons for climbing Mt. > Everest included "I like climbing mountains" and "It's the tallest > mountain in the world", which were both implicitly understood.) > > That 'reason' isn't going to get *anyone* to contribute to Debian. It > might get them to climb Mt. Everest, I suppose. That's funny. Those were all things I've heard from people who've been with the project for years. I don't think you're going to get it, either. It's basically the same question as "Why do people write free software?", and if you come up with "altruism", "politics", or "respect" then you're barking up the wrong tree. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpDqXJRLGCP6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
* Steve Lamb | On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:06:56 +0200 | Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > So it can if you use | or : or some other random character as well. | > It's still a bit silly to have to reflow all your paragraphs at the | > first quotation level, but whatever. | | Which I don't. Since the quoted text is automatically reflowed | before quoting in most cases. Furthermore if one is trimming as one | should one rarely gets past the first level anyway. And here I | thought EMACS was the one true editor. Live and learn I guess. (setq-default sentence-end "[.?!][]\"')}]*[ \n]+") (setq-default paragraph-start "^[|:> \t]*$") (setq-default paragraph-separate (default-value 'paragraph-start)) (setq adaptive-fill-regexp (substring (default-value 'paragraph-start) 1 -1)) helps a lot, IME. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:06:56 +0200 Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So it can if you use | or : or some other random character as well. > It's still a bit silly to have to reflow all your paragraphs at the > first quotation level, but whatever. Which I don't. Since the quoted text is automatically reflowed before quoting in most cases. Furthermore if one is trimming as one should one rarely gets past the first level anyway. And here I thought EMACS was the one true editor. Live and learn I guess. > I think alioth will help with this, since it's then easier to set up a > shared CVS repository and give other people access to your package and > making it fairly easy to get both DDs and non-DDs to help out. Hrm, now there's a thought. Certainly worth exploring. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpMoWtFaoJB3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:52:14 +0200 Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OTOH, most editors can be configured as to which characters they consider > to be quotes. True, but reflow across multiple levels tends to break when one has different quote characters to contend with. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpzERwq0JaPL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
Hi, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Please use a standard quote character, which is >. In that way pretty
> much any modern editor in the past, say, 10 years, can reflow quoted lines to
> fit within 80 characters.
OTOH, most editors can be configured as to which characters they consider
to be quotes.
OTGH, most mail/news viewers these days can do their own line breaks when
showing articles. (I do know that <80chars/line still make sense for quite
a few reasons.)
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
The mode by which the inevitable comes to pass is effort.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Re: About NM and Next Release
Hi, On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:08:38AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Anybody who has to ask "Why should I/we/they contribute?" is not > suitable for Debian. (The "answer", incidentally, is "because we can" > or "because it's there", or some other variation; it is a goal in > itself, and not a means to an end) I've heard our respected project secretary express a vastly different opinion on this matter. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies - Emile van Bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 http://www.e-advies.nl
Re: About NM and Next Release
* Steve Lamb | Please use a standard quote character, which is >. In that way | pretty much any modern editor in the past, say, 10 years, can reflow | quoted lines to fit within 80 characters. 72 was for the ~10 years | before reflowing of quotes. So it can if you use | or : or some other random character as well. It's still a bit silly to have to reflow all your paragraphs at the first quotation level, but whatever. [...] | > So, «core packages» go without love for long periods of time as | > well, unfortunately. | | Agreed. My idea is that the experienced maintainers might do | well to offload some of the rote packages to people who are just | learning about it so more people, overall, get experience while at | the same time freeing their time up to devote to the packages for | which their experience is called for. I think alioth will help with this, since it's then easier to set up a shared CVS repository and give other people access to your package and making it fairly easy to get both DDs and non-DDs to help out. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Friday 08 August 2003 04:09, Scott James Remnant wrote: Thanks a lot for this one. -- vbi -- I'm personally quite happy with one stable release every two years, and am of the opinion that trying to release more will mean we'll have to rename the distro from "stable" to "wobbly". -- Scott James Remnant on debian-devel pgpy79XqsqoY2.pgp Description: signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 08:04:04 +0200 Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Steve Lamb > (please trim your lines a little, 72 chars/line is considered > standard, to allow for a few levels of quoting before breaking the > lines on a 80 char wide terminal. TIA.) Please use a standard quote character, which is >. In that way pretty much any modern editor in the past, say, 10 years, can reflow quoted lines to fit within 80 characters. 72 was for the ~10 years before reflowing of quotes. > | That is true, but that doesn't make the package "important" in > | the sense I got from his message. What I envisioned was core > | packages. > It doesn't have «Priority: required» or important, no, but it's still > important to those users. Right, which I pointed out to him. I felt that the packages I installed were important to *me*. That doesn't change the fact that the sense of the word, I feel, was different when he said it since his intent was more along the case of core packages without functionality. > Apache was more or less unmaintained until thom, fabbione and myself > picked it up in April or so. If you want to help out, please do. Nono, I would not. As has been pointed out people should not take on management of a package they cannot handle. I know, without a doubt, apache would be beyond me. I'm starting with parchive2 and will work up from there. I had only picked apache as an example of something which would be considered an important package in the sense of one that is either required for Debian to run or would be sorely missed if it was not present as opposed to important in the sense of it being important to the people who install it. > So, «core packages» go without love for long periods of time as well, > unfortunately. Agreed. My idea is that the experienced maintainers might do well to offload some of the rote packages to people who are just learning about it so more people, overall, get experience while at the same time freeing their time up to devote to the packages for which their experience is called for. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpr5qtKoLQl7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
* Steve Lamb (please trim your lines a little, 72 chars/line is considered standard, to allow for a few levels of quoting before breaking the lines on a 80 char wide terminal. TIA.) | That is true, but that doesn't make the package "important" in | the sense I got from his message. What I envisioned was core | packages. It doesn't have «Priority: required» or important, no, but it's still important to those users. | IE, things that, without them, Debian would not run (libc?) or would | leave a gaping hole that a slew of people would miss (apache?). Apache was more or less unmaintained until thom, fabbione and myself picked it up in April or so. If you want to help out, please do. Viewcvs on http://cvs.raw.no/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/debian-apache/ , we hang out at #debian-apache on OFTC. Patches and bug triaging help accepted. The usual way works: you send us patches, we apply them, we get tired of applying patches, you get commit privileges. So, «core packages» go without love for long periods of time as well, unfortunately. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Friday 08 August 2003 05:23, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Policy changes, voting and the internal discussions all need > membership. Having NMs hang in limbo without due cause is denying them > the right to those. Voting yes. But to me it seems that most issues are discussed on the open lists - I am very much interested in the inner workings of Debian, and I sometimes particitpate in those discussions. I never felt that I was ignored just because IANADD. greetings -- vbi -- random link of the day: http://fortytwo.ch/sienapei/ohqueeve pgpNhs0eTURBE.pgp Description: signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:32:43 +0200 Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Somebody ITP-ed cpufreq a little time ago. That's quite important if > you are using a laptop (which a lot of DDs are) with ACPI and you > don't want to burn all your battery. > New tools get written all the time, many to fulfill a niche which > wasn't there a year or two back. That is true, but that doesn't make the package "important" in the sense I got from his message. What I envisioned was core packages. IE, things that, without them, Debian would not run (libc?) or would leave a gaping hole that a slew of people would miss (apache?). I ITP'd parchive2, have the package done and waiting on a sponsor. I and pretty much anyone else who decodes binaries off the newsgroups uses it. I don't believe it qualifies as important as he meant it even though it is important to me. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpo7jSXZwEl5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
* Goswin von Brederlow | How does a package become important? All the important stuf has been | in debian for years. I doubt any NM can come up with a new package | where people say: "Gosh, if we wouldn't have that we would be screwed." Somebody ITP-ed cpufreq a little time ago. That's quite important if you are using a laptop (which a lot of DDs are) with ACPI and you don't want to burn all your battery. New tools get written all the time, many to fulfill a niche which wasn't there a year or two back. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: About NM and next release
Andrew Suffield said: >On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:56:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Wrong. There have been specific technical things I wanted to do >> which simply cannot be done easily as an outsider. ^^ >> >> Generally it's QA stuff. I'm doing it anyway, of course; it's just >> slower and more tedious and discouraging. > >You just contradicted yourself. It's clearly not wrong - you *are* No, I didn't contradict myself. Read what I said again carefully, noticing the word which I pointed out for you. That word is 'easily'. I *am* doing the work, but I am *not* doing it easily; I am instead doing it with difficulty. Got it? >doing it anyway. So the system works as it is supposed to. The system is supposed to make it hard for people to contribute? That seems dumb. :-) OK, I admit to deliberately twisting your meaning a little in that last paragraph, but I'm trying to make a point. "The system" actively discourages people from contributing, and makes it hard for their contributions to be used in a timely fashion. This seems bad to me. This slowdown effect probably contributes to how long it takes Debian to resolve some issues, and the tediously long release cycle. *shrug* -- I guess you probably meant that because I am already demonstrating stuff, I do have a good reason to join Debian, and do not have to be told to demonstrate stuff. Which is what the word "Wrong" referred to. So I withdraw that word. It was a mistake. I think we're on the same page, basically. -- Nathanael Nerode http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: About NM and Next Release
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Anybody who has to ask "Why should I/we/they contribute?" is not >suitable for Debian. (The "answer", incidentally, is "because we can" >or "because it's there", or some other variation; it is a goal in >itself, and not a means to an end) OK, now *that* is just nonsense. People contribute because they: * use Debian and want to make it better * want to contribute something to a project they respect * want to do something which is made easier by contributing to Debian * want to help out Debian users * want to help promote the goals of Debian I'm sure there are other reasons. "Because it's there" is a non-reason. OK, maybe it was a reasonable (if silly) answer for why to climb Mt. Everest. But Debian isn't a natural feature of the landscape, and it certainly isn't an exceptional and notable one. (Real reasons for climbing Mt. Everest included "I like climbing mountains" and "It's the tallest mountain in the world", which were both implicitly understood.) That 'reason' isn't going to get *anyone* to contribute to Debian. It might get them to climb Mt. Everest, I suppose. You give an actual reason later in the same mail message: >Having some specific, valuable things they want to contribute would be >a good one Which makes your bizarre claim up above all the weirder. Perhaps what you meant to say was: "I want contributors to have something specific and valuable which they want to contribute. If they don't already have such a thing, they shouldn't contribute." Which I can understand, given that it's very easy to find things for which help is wanted in Debian. The general complaint, however, is that people offering help which they think is useful get ignored, or even worse, get hostile responses attacking them personally. This certainly doesn't happen with all or even most of Debian, but it seems to happen with distressing regularity in some areas. -- Nathanael Nerode http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:52:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Good grief, how easy do we have to make it? > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/tag:patch > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=&include=patch > > > > > > See the form at http://bugs.debian.org/ which gives pointy-clicky access > > > to these. > > > > Easier than that aparently. And don't tell me how to do it. Tell the > > DDs eager to upload debs with those patches merged in. > > I'm afraid I neither understand your point (what can I do beyond > publishing it on -devel?) nor why you felt I needed a private copy as > well as the list mail. Sorry, I'm confused now. Just saying that it doesn't help me much to see what packages could need an NMU but DDs should take it to heart and maybe fix some of those. MfG Goswin
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:42:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > > > > Maybe an interface/filter for the bts that gives one a more easy > > > > access to packages with patches pending would be a start. Or a system > > > > > > Try http://bugs.debian.org/tag:patch . > > > > Still not easy enough it seems: > > > > # #19648: Please document (and handle) callback option better > > Package: ppp; Severity: minor; Reported by: Bill Wohler <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 5 years and 146 days old. > > # #12411: example directory lister ignores errors > > Package: glibc-doc; Reported by: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: > > patch; 5 years and 342 days old. > > > > Do you think any DD reads those? Do DDs care about Bugs with patches? > > And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. > > ppp *was* unmaintained, for a long period of time. This is almost > certainly the reason for its inordinately long bug list, and it is > quite likely that the current maintainer does not have time to study > all the old bugs and process them - especially minor ones. > > glibc is even worse. It has multiple maintainers, and they still don't > have enough time to chase down all the important bugs, let alone > insignificant ones like this. > > > Do you still claim that non-DDs can do work for debian simply by > > sending in patches? > > It's not like a developer could do anything more, in these two That being true still doesn't help non DDs to contribute. > cases. Any developer who NMUs a package with an active maintainer, to > fix minor/wishlist bugs, should be repeatedly kicked in the head. So > your argument kinda falls flat. If you are suggesting that you would > NMU either of these packages to fix these bugs, then it suddenly > becomes very clear to me why you do not have an account. No I wouldn't. Those two are bad examples for NMU'able debs. But the list of debs with patches is very long. And a new DD might have more time than the current ones that already have several packages they maintain. > Unless they wanted to co-maintain the package - and a non-developer > could do all the important stuff for that anyway (bug triage). Can one get the same list of packages with patches but sorted by the time since the last activity? Or date of the patch? Or a list of packages with patches for an older version? Non-DDs could pick up an old patch and see to it that it works with a newer version. Might be something they could get get credits for on their application. Is there a space on the application where sponsors or maintainer who see good work being done by the NM can give comments. Surely the DAM can't follow all sponsored uploads or patches send to the bts so he might easily overlook an productive NM. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
Josef Spillner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That being said, the cyclic mentioning of non-openness problems on d-d does > not invalidate the fact that those who invest time into a project are > steering it, independent of whether they're a "member" or not (true also for > KDE and certainly other projects). And here is another important reason to become DD: To steer the project. Policy changes, voting and the internal discussions all need membership. Having NMs hang in limbo without due cause is denying them the right to those. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:02:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > Also aren't mails between AM, DAM, Advocate and NM archived somewhere? > > This is not the case for at least the AM<->NM mails. Also, advocating > someone is basically just a virtual tick in a box. Then they should be if only for the mishap of an AM going MIA and another AM having to pick up. In my opinion all parties involved should also have access to the archive. If the DAM asks the AM if the NM is a total smeghead and the AM says yes they should have the guts to let the NM know. Seeing such a mail exchange in the archive one probably wouldn't wonder why one is in limbo for month. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve Lamb wrote: > > Obviously you want people who like the project to contribute. > > For meaningful values of "contribute", sure. But being a project member > with a d.o account is not essential to contributing, and its arguable > how significant a "contribution" it is to just maintain a few packages > when Debian is so big already (unless they're important packages, in > which case it seems you are more likely to get through the NM process > quickly). I don't deny that the sponsorship requirement for How does a package become important? All the important stuf has been in debian for years. I doubt any NM can come up with a new package where people say: "Gosh, if we wouldn't have that we would be screwed." > non-developers is annoying, but if worse comes to worst, you can simply > set up your own repository and Bugzilla somewhere and publicize its > location for the benefit of those users who want your packages. If you > don't have the bandwidth or full-time connection or hosting arrangements > to do such a thing, well, gee. Life is hard, isn' t it. > > > No, I am pointing out that it appears that Debian, on the whole, > > needs an attitude readjustment. On the one hand you have d.o people > > blasting people for not contributing and on the other you have d.o > > people discouraging people from contributing. You cannot have it both > > ways. Either you accept the contributions that come or you stop > > blasting people because they don't contribute. > > The NM process, viewed from the outside (and I'm on the outside too), > looks like quite a mess. I dislike the obvious dishonesty of the project > having a documented process for new maintainers, important aspects of > which are ignored by the people responsible for running it. That this is > excused by various other project members is rather sad. The process seems fine to me in theory. It works fine with the AM and I guess with Advocates too (don't have one, my NM application predates them, which in itself says something). The most complains come from the "Waiting for DAM" stage. Its sound in theory but its eigther not done at all for long streches of time (only 3 times in the last 8 month from the look of the graph posted earlier) or lacks the feedback that work is actually done and things are progressing. > If the Debian project and its leadership are unwilling to require (and > enforce the requirement) that the DAM follow the NM procedure as > written, including formally rejecting people if they're not going to be > approved, then the documentation should be updated to reflect this. At > least it would be honest, whatever else one might say about it, to say > openly that unacceptable applicants will be ignored until they go away. > > Craig MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 21:49, Chris Cheney got eaten by the Troll: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:10:01PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > I've always thought KDE a wonderful example of what happens when you > > give commit access to just about anybody too. > > > > Scott > > (GNOME user) > > Oh you mean the fact that KDE has rapid development... Yep. ;) > I'm personally quite happy with one stable release every two years, and am of the opinion that trying to release more will mean we'll have to rename the distro from "stable" to "wobbly". But that's *another* flame war, and I generally don't get involved except to add humour[0] :o) Scott [0] or start them Debian 4! *ahem* signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:52:04PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Good grief, how easy do we have to make it? > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/tag:patch > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=&include=patch > > > > See the form at http://bugs.debian.org/ which gives pointy-clicky access > > to these. > > Easier than that aparently. And don't tell me how to do it. Tell the > DDs eager to upload debs with those patches merged in. I'm afraid I neither understand your point (what can I do beyond publishing it on -devel?) nor why you felt I needed a private copy as well as the list mail. Sorry, I'm confused now. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 00:08:38 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anybody who has to ask "Why should I/we/they contribute?" is not > suitable for Debian. Oddly enough, I've never asked that. > (The "answer", incidentally, is "because we can" > or "because it's there", or some other variation; it is a goal in > itself, and not a means to an end) That, however, is not enough in and of itself. I *could* very well contribute to FreeBSD. I don't. Why? Because I don't like FreeBSD. I like Debian. You're misconstruing that the statement is "you like it therefore you should contribute" when it is is "I like it therefore I want to contribute". There is no goal there, none, other than the contribution. > True but misleading. Liking the project, or not, is not actually > relevant - which is why it's a bad reason to join. And hey, that's > what I actually said, rather than any of the things you've claimed I > said. Quite the contrary, it is a telling reason. At no time should anyone who dislikes the project actually be working on it. At that point it ceases to become something worthwhile for them to work on and becomes an extra chore and duty they are performing out of a misplaced sense of, I dunno, honor. That, in turn, almost guarantees they will not be putting forth the best effort possible. Why anyone would willing work on a project they don't like and, consequently, gain nothing from is beyond me. > > Such as? > Wow. You really *weren't* listening. Of course not being that this is a written medium. Furthermore I might have missed the specific reasons you were thinking of. I don't know about you but reading this list is not my primary concern on this or any other day. Reading this list is something I do in my spare time. So if I missed the message you were thinking of, inadvertently skipped over and deleted it or in the press of my other concerns today have had it slip my mind I think that asking for confirmation is hardly out of line? I chalk this up to the base hostility that is characteristic to many of those with d.o addresses. > Having some specific, valuable things they want to contribute would be > a good one - like maintaining a package or group of packages. (That > doesn't necessarily mean they'll get an account, but it's a good > reason to try) Funny, I file that under "wanting to contribute". The exact line that was refuted as a lousy reason to join Debian was: "Because you think it's an awesome group with laudable goals and you want to contribute?" ^^ Yes, thinking that just because Debian is a swell idea is not enough. But wanting to contribute in addition to that is a damned good start. One, I might add, that thus far seems to jive with the reasons you're putting forth. > > Neither. I am pointing out that someone liking a project is hardly a > > reason to reject them out of hand. > An idea which you made up entirely on your own, and then attributed to > me. So which is it? Uh, no. You're the one who wrote that someone liking Debian was a lousy reason for them to join. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgp86Mcpty3Xd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and next release
Nathanael Nerode wrote: >Wrong. There have been specific technical things I wanted to do >which simply cannot be done easily as an outsider. In this sort of case, the answer is not necessarily to make the NM process faster - it's to make it easier for outsiders to contribute to the rest of Debian without opening us up to excessive ineptitude or malice. >Incidentally, the entire NM system seems geared toward package >maintainers only, if you read the web pages. (That was not >particularly encouraging.) That's so massively a separate issue it's unbelievable, but yes - making life easier for people who want to do translation and documentation and stuff would be sensible. (As an entirely pointless suggestion - how about making it easier for people to get an @debian.org address and some sort of associated status but not making it easier (or making it harder) for people to get the ability to upload packages? That way the people who do just want to claim to be a 1337 Debian contributor on their CV can do so without consuming as much time, but we don't risk anything significant as a result...) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About NM and next release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:57:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:56:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Wrong. There have been specific technical things I wanted to do > > which simply cannot be done easily as an outsider. > > > > Generally it's QA stuff. I'm doing it anyway, of course; it's just > > slower and more tedious and discouraging. > > You just contradicted yourself. It's clearly not wrong - you *are* > doing it anyway. So the system works as it is supposed to. Just because it _can_ be done under the current system doesn't mean that the current system isn't broken or in need of improvement. Some of us feel it can be done _better_. -- Jamin W. Collins Remember, root always has a loaded gun. Don't run around with it unless you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 03:57:10PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:25:41 +0100 > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I *do not* want people to contribute *because* they "like the > > project". > > What other reason would their be? Why would they want to contribute to a > project they don't like esp. when there is no financial gain for it? IE, do > what you like. If you don't like it, don't do it. I suspect you will never understand, and therefore will probably never get an account. Anybody who has to ask "Why should I/we/they contribute?" is not suitable for Debian. (The "answer", incidentally, is "because we can" or "because it's there", or some other variation; it is a goal in itself, and not a means to an end) > I suspect what you mean to say is that you don't want people to contribute > *solely* based on the fact that they like the project. You, however, have not > yet mentioned that. True but misleading. Liking the project, or not, is not actually relevant - which is why it's a bad reason to join. And hey, that's what I actually said, rather than any of the things you've claimed I said. > > They should find some other reason to contribute. Preferably one which > > makes sense. We've suggested one or two in other parts of this thread. > > Such as? Wow. You really *weren't* listening. Having some specific, valuable things they want to contribute would be a good one - like maintaining a package or group of packages. (That doesn't necessarily mean they'll get an account, but it's a good reason to try) > > Please tell me you are not seriously taking the words of Sherlock > > Holmes as the foundation of all logic. > > Of course not. But if the shoe fits. That's the fallacy of indiscriminate extrapolation. Just because 1 == 1 does not mean that for any two integers, they are equal. In this case, you happened to be wrong, so... > > Is this merely an attempt at libel, or are you really that confused? > > Neither. I am pointing out that someone liking a project is hardly a > reason to reject them out of hand. An idea which you made up entirely on your own, and then attributed to me. So which is it? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpxMY2yNvKXC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and next release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:56:44PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > >I'm not sure there are any good ones other than having some specific > >(technical, not political) things you want to see done and are willing > >to do. In that case, you won't have to be told to demonstrate stuff - > >you'll just do it, because you want to. > Wrong. There have been specific technical things I wanted to do > which simply cannot be done easily as an outsider. > > Generally it's QA stuff. I'm doing it anyway, of course; it's just > slower and more tedious and discouraging. You just contradicted yourself. It's clearly not wrong - you *are* doing it anyway. So the system works as it is supposed to. > Incidentally, the entire NM system seems geared toward package > maintainers only, if you read the web pages. (That was not > particularly encouraging.) Coincidental but true. We have a good understanding of how to deal with package-maintaining applicants. Others are harder. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpeWUcjVDt6Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:25:41 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I *do not* want people to contribute *because* they "like the > project". What other reason would their be? Why would they want to contribute to a project they don't like esp. when there is no financial gain for it? IE, do what you like. If you don't like it, don't do it. I suspect what you mean to say is that you don't want people to contribute *solely* based on the fact that they like the project. You, however, have not yet mentioned that. > They should find some other reason to contribute. Preferably one which > makes sense. We've suggested one or two in other parts of this thread. Such as? > Please tell me you are not seriously taking the words of Sherlock > Holmes as the foundation of all logic. Of course not. But if the shoe fits. > Is this merely an attempt at libel, or are you really that confused? Neither. I am pointing out that someone liking a project is hardly a reason to reject them out of hand. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpQm8qd2Vd2u.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No. But you said that the opposite is the wrong reason. If we like > Debian it is a bad reason to want to contribute. No. I think Andrew meant that liking Debian or wanting to contribute is a bad reason to join Debian. He wants people to contribute, since you don't need join Debian to do it. I don't know if he really sees any reason as being a good one to try to join Debian. I'd think the right to vote on policy that would affect things that contributers are doing would be a good reason, but nobody ever seems to mention that. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - I am the rocks. Timothy: What happens when you feed a smurf after midnight.
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:26:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:23:20 +0100 > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Of course that isn't true, I was just showing the farce of your > > > statement. Obviously you want people who like the project to contribute. > > > You have failed miserably at understanding my statement. I do not want > > people to contribute because they "like the project". This is not > > "obvious"; moreover, it's wrong. > > Uh, no. You have 3 possible pools. > > 1: Someone likes Debian. > 2: Someone dislikes Debian. > 3: Someone hasn't formed an opinion of Debian or doesn't care about Debian. > > Do you want contributions from 2 or 3? IE, someone who dislikes it or > someone who is uninformed or ambivalent to the whole process? I'll try this just one more time. If it doesn't sink in, I'll write you off as a person who is incapable of communication in this medium. I *do not* want people to contribute *because* they "like the project". Additionally I do not want people to contribute because they fall into any of the other groups you mentioned above, although that's completely irrelevant. They should find some other reason to contribute. Preferably one which makes sense. We've suggested one or two in other parts of this thread. > > None of which implies that they have to "hate" the project before > > joining. > > Well, you've rejected the one category I think it would be logical to look > at. What's left is most likely and all that. Please tell me you are not seriously taking the words of Sherlock Holmes as the foundation of all logic. > > Uhm, yes we can. Did you read what I wrote? We want people who will be > > unaffected by such things. Note that the fact that we self-select for > > such people is the cause, rather than the result, of this. > > So, let me get this straight. You want people who will want to contribute > to a project which shuns them if they don't, shuns them if they do, expects > them to eat crap and like it. That about right? Is this merely an attempt at libel, or are you really that confused? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpcCrnHo4lUr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
> Uh, no. You have 3 possible pools. > > 1: Someone likes Debian. > 2: Someone dislikes Debian. > 3: Someone hasn't formed an opinion of Debian or doesn't care about Debian. > > Do you want contributions from 2 or 3? IE, someone who dislikes it or > someone who is uninformed or ambivalent to the whole process? There are (of course) other pools, for instance the pool of people who like Debian and have something *in particular* to contribute *today*. It's fair to stipulate that this pool is much smaller than pool #1 above, yes? Or are you being intentionally difficult? I've been trying to keep an open mind in this conversation (and I am even rather sympathetic) but I'm about to give up. > So, let me get this straight. You want people who will want to contribute > to a project which shuns them if they don't, shuns them if they do, expects > them to eat crap and like it. That about right? Yep. I've given up now. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgp5XbB8nFtu9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:49:28 -0500 Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:10:01PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > I've always thought KDE a wonderful example of what happens when you > > give commit access to just about anybody too. > > Scott > > (GNOME user) > Oh you mean the fact that KDE has rapid development... Yep. ;) Or the fact that KDE was founded to make a desktop environment while GNOME was founded to kill KDE. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpNseF6305U4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:29:03 -0700 Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew said that merely liking Debian wasn't a good enough reason to > want to join the project. No, he said it wasn't a good reason. No "enough". Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "TBH, that's a lousy reason to join Debian. Send a cheque or something." > His point, I think, was that you should have a desire to _do_ something in > particular, whether or not you are a "Debian developer". That would be the part where the original poster says "and wants to contribute". IE, they think Debian is a good group with ideals worth working towards *and* wants to contribute. > Is your goal to be a Debian developer, and you're willing to do some work in > order to be accepted into the project? Or is your goal to get some useful > work done, in which case being an official developer is just a convenience? Am I the only one who sees those as one and the same? To become a developer you get work done. The desire to get work done comes from wanting to contribute. Wanting to contribute comes from liking Debian. > For meaningful values of "contribute", sure. But being a project member > with a d.o account is not essential to contributing, and its arguable > how significant a "contribution" it is to just maintain a few packages > when Debian is so big already (unless they're important packages, in > which case it seems you are more likely to get through the NM process > quickly). But the whole point of different people maintaining different packages, even the "unimportant" ones (Sorry, but most of the packages installed on my machine are important to *me*) is so that a small base of people doesn't need to maintain an absurd number of packages themselves. Even here, though, there seems to be some division within Debian. It comes back to the two faces Debian presents of shunning people for not contributing but shunning them if they attempt to. You place importance of maintaining "just a few packages", right? Yet in this thread (and many like it over the years) time and again the other point driven home is that people should not maintain something they are not actively using, at a minimum, or on the outside something they are incapable of maintaining. Not everyone can maintain or help out on the "important" packages but they can keep the larger bulk of things in line. They should not be shunned because they don't have years upon years of packaging experience. Of course they don't. That's the whole point of *NEW* maintainers, is it not? > I don't deny that the sponsorship requirement for non-developers is > annoying, It shouldn't be. If Debian really wants maintain a division between "people who contribute by packaging a few 'unimportant' packages" and "Maintainers" there are a few things they should do. 1: Get some verbage in there. I maintain a package. To me it seems logical I should go through the new "maintainer" process. But that gets me to be a Debian... Developer. Call it the new Developer process. Separate out maintainers (those who maintain packages) vs developers (those who actively develop Debian *and* maintain its core, er, important packages). 2: Set up a formal group that does nothing but sponsor. Their main goal is to sponsor non-core, non-developer packages. 3: Have the Developers look over their package list and seriously ask themselves if they must maintain everything on that list or if a non-developer maintainer could just as easily do the work. If so have a reverse process from the sponsor process. We have RFS, why not RFM? IE, "Here's a package I am willing to sponsor, who will maintain it?" > but if worse comes to worst, you can simply set up your own > repository and Bugzilla somewhere and publicize its location for the benefit > of those users who want your packages. This, of course, is contrary to the responses of many d.o holders who cite this practice as one of the evils of RPM and why Debian is superior. Because of its centrally maintained repository. > The NM process, viewed from the outside (and I'm on the outside too), > looks like quite a mess. I dislike the obvious dishonesty of the project > having a documented process for new maintainers, important aspects of > which are ignored by the people responsible for running it. That this is > excused by various other project members is rather sad. I dislike the fact that the project is willing to be open about its bugs, open about the process when it comes to software and documentation but is closed about the processes of running the project. People here have said that why a NM applicant is in limbo is not a matter of public concern. I feel that item 3 of the Social Contract applies. We Won't Hide Problems We will keep our entire bug-report database open for public view at all times. Reports that users file on-line will immediately become visible to others. Yes, it specifically mentio
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thursday 07 August 2003 09:51, Yven Johannes Leist wrote: > I think not even that is exactly true either, since the skills required to > get a cvs account for KDE are surely somewhat above our NM checks[1]. You > usually need to have a whole application written by yourself to get an > account, and while this is of course somewhat similar to our "prospective Not necessarily :) A decent committment to some part of the source tree should suffice. Also not all accounts are developer accounts, there are translators, www maintainers and so forth. > DDs should have at least one package" rule, creating a Debian package is > hardly comparable to creating a full-blown C++ application. (Unless, of > course, the complexity of the Debian package is well above average, because > of required and difficult upstream work for instance.) This might apply to people not knowing C++ for whatever reason, but beyond I consider both tasks of about the same complexity. It's just that developing an application is hard at the beginning (until a certain set of features has been implemented), whereas Debian package maintenance becomes harder later on when dealing with changing dependencies, smooth upgrades/downgrades and probably backports. That being said, the cyclic mentioning of non-openness problems on d-d does not invalidate the fact that those who invest time into a project are steering it, independent of whether they're a "member" or not (true also for KDE and certainly other projects). Josef
Re: About NM and next release
> Incidentally, the entire NM system seems geared toward package > maintainers only, if you read the web pages. (That was not > particularly encouraging.) It seems in that way. However, AM asks you what to do in Debian. When you choose a specific section, You are not supposed to know that issue. You have to know the entire project as a whole. I do not claim against this. What I would like to expect from NM as an on queue applicant is that If i will prove to be a maintainer, It should not be after years of time. It should not be that long to be one. pgpD7nKVTB1Oh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:23:20 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course that isn't true, I was just showing the farce of your > > statement. Obviously you want people who like the project to contribute. > You have failed miserably at understanding my statement. I do not want > people to contribute because they "like the project". This is not > "obvious"; moreover, it's wrong. Uh, no. You have 3 possible pools. 1: Someone likes Debian. 2: Someone dislikes Debian. 3: Someone hasn't formed an opinion of Debian or doesn't care about Debian. Do you want contributions from 2 or 3? IE, someone who dislikes it or someone who is uninformed or ambivalent to the whole process? > None of which implies that they have to "hate" the project before > joining. Well, you've rejected the one category I think it would be logical to look at. What's left is most likely and all that. > Uhm, yes we can. Did you read what I wrote? We want people who will be > unaffected by such things. Note that the fact that we self-select for > such people is the cause, rather than the result, of this. So, let me get this straight. You want people who will want to contribute to a project which shuns them if they don't, shuns them if they do, expects them to eat crap and like it. That about right? -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpnRNa7HzbB0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and next release
Andrew Suffield wrote: >I'm not sure there are any good ones other than having some specific >(technical, not political) things you want to see done and are willing >to do. In that case, you won't have to be told to demonstrate stuff - >you'll just do it, because you want to. Wrong. There have been specific technical things I wanted to do which simply cannot be done easily as an outsider. Generally it's QA stuff. I'm doing it anyway, of course; it's just slower and more tedious and discouraging. So I tend to prefer to go back to my GCC work. (Despite many claims of patches and submissions getting ignored at GCC, I've found them to be easier to help than Debian in general. This is not intended to disparage those package maintainers who are really good at communicating and being responsive, of which I have encountered quite a few.) Incidentally, the entire NM system seems geared toward package maintainers only, if you read the web pages. (That was not particularly encouraging.) -- Nathanael Nerode http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:02:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Also aren't mails between AM, DAM, Advocate and NM archived somewhere? This is not the case for at least the AM<->NM mails. Also, advocating someone is basically just a virtual tick in a box. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Re: About NM and Next Release
Andrew Suffield wrote: >>Because you think it's an awesome group with laudable goals and you >>want to contribute? > TBH, that's a lousy reason to join Debian. Send a cheque or something. Yeah, but Debian isn't *that* awesome before I decide to join (and am accepted). ;) Cheers T. P.S.: SCNR pgps08gkDHUtS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:10:01PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > I've always thought KDE a wonderful example of what happens when you > give commit access to just about anybody too. > > Scott > (GNOME user) Oh you mean the fact that KDE has rapid development... Yep. ;) Chris
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:56:24PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:23:48 +0100 > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:06:39PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:23:17 +0100 > > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:27:00AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > > > > Because you think it's an awesome group with laudable goals and you > > > > > want to contribute? > > > > TBH, that's a lousy reason to join Debian. Send a cheque or something. > > > *cough* Oh, right, we should hate Debian, loathe it before joining, > > > right? > > Do you have difficulty with English? That is not what I said. > > No. But you said that the opposite is the wrong reason. If we like > Debian it is a bad reason to want to contribute. So the it is only logical to > presume that if you feel liking is a bad reason disliking might very well be a > good one. That's *logical*? Rather, it's *absurd*. > Of course that isn't true, I was just showing the farce of your > statement. Obviously you want people who like the project to contribute. You have failed miserably at understanding my statement. I do not want people to contribute because they "like the project". This is not "obvious"; moreover, it's wrong. None of which implies that they have to "hate" the project before joining. > > My whole point is that Debian does not need people who need encouraging. We > > need people who will do the work *without* encouragement, mostly > > because they ain't going to get any. > > But it doesn't have to actively shun and discourage people who want to > contribute, either, does it? Correct, it does not have to. Neither does it have to avoid doing so. > > If you are attempting to suggest that people should be given accounts > > as a form of encouragement, then there are two problems with this > > idea: > > No, I am pointing out that it appears that Debian, on the whole, needs an > attitude readjustment. On the one hand you have d.o people blasting people > for not contributing and on the other you have d.o people discouraging people > from contributing. You cannot have it both ways. Uhm, yes we can. Did you read what I wrote? We want people who will be unaffected by such things. Note that the fact that we self-select for such people is the cause, rather than the result, of this. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpYiDFUoYOc2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
Steve Lamb wrote: > No. But you said that the opposite is the wrong reason. If we like > Debian it is a bad reason to want to contribute. So the it is only > logical to presume that if you feel liking is a bad reason disliking > might very well be a good one. This is "logical"? In what universe? Andrew said that merely liking Debian wasn't a good enough reason to want to join the project. His point, I think, was that you should have a desire to _do_ something in particular, whether or not you are a "Debian developer". Is your goal to be a Debian developer, and you're willing to do some work in order to be accepted into the project? Or is your goal to get some useful work done, in which case being an official developer is just a convenience? > Obviously you want people who like the project to contribute. For meaningful values of "contribute", sure. But being a project member with a d.o account is not essential to contributing, and its arguable how significant a "contribution" it is to just maintain a few packages when Debian is so big already (unless they're important packages, in which case it seems you are more likely to get through the NM process quickly). I don't deny that the sponsorship requirement for non-developers is annoying, but if worse comes to worst, you can simply set up your own repository and Bugzilla somewhere and publicize its location for the benefit of those users who want your packages. If you don't have the bandwidth or full-time connection or hosting arrangements to do such a thing, well, gee. Life is hard, isn' t it. > No, I am pointing out that it appears that Debian, on the whole, > needs an attitude readjustment. On the one hand you have d.o people > blasting people for not contributing and on the other you have d.o > people discouraging people from contributing. You cannot have it both > ways. Either you accept the contributions that come or you stop > blasting people because they don't contribute. The NM process, viewed from the outside (and I'm on the outside too), looks like quite a mess. I dislike the obvious dishonesty of the project having a documented process for new maintainers, important aspects of which are ignored by the people responsible for running it. That this is excused by various other project members is rather sad. If the Debian project and its leadership are unwilling to require (and enforce the requirement) that the DAM follow the NM procedure as written, including formally rejecting people if they're not going to be approved, then the documentation should be updated to reflect this. At least it would be honest, whatever else one might say about it, to say openly that unacceptable applicants will be ignored until they go away. Craig pgpCPXutAV28z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:50:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:42:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > > Maybe an interface/filter for the bts that gives one a more easy > > > access to packages with patches pending would be a start. Or a system > > > > Try http://bugs.debian.org/tag:patch . > > Still not easy enough it seems: > > # #19648: Please document (and handle) callback option better > Package: ppp; Severity: minor; Reported by: Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > Tags: patch; 5 years and 146 days old. > # #12411: example directory lister ignores errors > Package: glibc-doc; Reported by: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: > patch; 5 years and 342 days old. > > Do you think any DD reads those? Do DDs care about Bugs with patches? > And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. ppp *was* unmaintained, for a long period of time. This is almost certainly the reason for its inordinately long bug list, and it is quite likely that the current maintainer does not have time to study all the old bugs and process them - especially minor ones. glibc is even worse. It has multiple maintainers, and they still don't have enough time to chase down all the important bugs, let alone insignificant ones like this. > Do you still claim that non-DDs can do work for debian simply by > sending in patches? It's not like a developer could do anything more, in these two cases. Any developer who NMUs a package with an active maintainer, to fix minor/wishlist bugs, should be repeatedly kicked in the head. So your argument kinda falls flat. If you are suggesting that you would NMU either of these packages to fix these bugs, then it suddenly becomes very clear to me why you do not have an account. Unless they wanted to co-maintain the package - and a non-developer could do all the important stuff for that anyway (bug triage). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgput0PIyPmCW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 20:23:48 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:06:39PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:23:17 +0100 > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:27:00AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > > > Because you think it's an awesome group with laudable goals and you > > > > want to contribute? > > > TBH, that's a lousy reason to join Debian. Send a cheque or something. > > *cough* Oh, right, we should hate Debian, loathe it before joining, > > right? > Do you have difficulty with English? That is not what I said. No. But you said that the opposite is the wrong reason. If we like Debian it is a bad reason to want to contribute. So the it is only logical to presume that if you feel liking is a bad reason disliking might very well be a good one. Of course that isn't true, I was just showing the farce of your statement. Obviously you want people who like the project to contribute. > And that doesn't make any sense; what are you talking about? The fact that Debian seems to be hostile? > My whole point is that Debian does not need people who need encouraging. We > need people who will do the work *without* encouragement, mostly > because they ain't going to get any. But it doesn't have to actively shun and discourage people who want to contribute, either, does it? > If you are attempting to suggest that people should be given accounts > as a form of encouragement, then there are two problems with this > idea: No, I am pointing out that it appears that Debian, on the whole, needs an attitude readjustment. On the one hand you have d.o people blasting people for not contributing and on the other you have d.o people discouraging people from contributing. You cannot have it both ways. Either you accept the contributions that come or you stop blasting people because they don't contribute. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgp2pPA1HoKmJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:06:39PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:23:17 +0100 > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:27:00AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > > Because you think it's an awesome group with laudable goals and you > > > want to contribute? > > > TBH, that's a lousy reason to join Debian. Send a cheque or something. > > *cough* Oh, right, we should hate Debian, loathe it before joining, > right? Do you have difficulty with English? That is not what I said. > > I'm not sure there are any good ones other than having some specific > > (technical, not political) things you want to see done and are willing > > to do. In that case, you won't have to be told to demonstrate stuff - > > you'll just do it, because you want to. > > Bull. Do you know how many times people with d.o accounts will blast > others to "do something!" Obviously this isn't enough yet it seems like > Debian doesn't want to encourage people who want to do the rarest of things... > contribute. And that doesn't make any sense; what are you talking about? My whole point is that Debian does not need people who need encouraging. We need people who will do the work *without* encouragement, mostly because they ain't going to get any. If you are attempting to suggest that people should be given accounts as a form of encouragement, then there are two problems with this idea: 1) It's insane. This is not a club. 2) It only works once. Those people will be "encouraged" for about a week, then they'll go MIA, because they won't get any more ego boosters. Which is why we don't need them. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgp5DzlQAIpIX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 17:23:17 +0100 Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:27:00AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > > Because you think it's an awesome group with laudable goals and you > > want to contribute? > TBH, that's a lousy reason to join Debian. Send a cheque or something. *cough* Oh, right, we should hate Debian, loathe it before joining, right? > I'm not sure there are any good ones other than having some specific > (technical, not political) things you want to see done and are willing > to do. In that case, you won't have to be told to demonstrate stuff - > you'll just do it, because you want to. Bull. Do you know how many times people with d.o accounts will blast others to "do something!" Obviously this isn't enough yet it seems like Debian doesn't want to encourage people who want to do the rarest of things... contribute. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgp2RaTC2UWfr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:47:38AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:38:34PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > > > Anyway, waiting for DAM for some months now. I guess it has been > > > 4-5 months now. I asked him on IRC when he might get arround to > > > my application, but he just said when he has time... > > > > He actually replied? > > > > I saw him talking on irc and thus knew he was around and > > breathing. But not even a "bugger off" reply when I asked him. > > Maybe you didn't ask right :) But you will probably get the same > response as I got - he'll get arround to it when he has time. > > > > But I have no complains.. well, maybe except that every week or two > > > the parties responsible for the applicant (eg, AM or DAM) should > > > send out a status reports or something. That way there would be > > > less stagnation in the entire process. Why? Because people want to > > > do least amount of work to do their job. Just a suggestion. > > > > A simple timestamps on the application webpage showing the last time > > the AM or DAM did anything with the application would be a plus > > already. > > But *if* the DAM or AM would need to write a status report every > week or two re: applications they are responsible for, there would be a > tendancy to > either: > 1. reject the applicant (eg. when applicant doesn't reply to >email or doesn't know what make does) > 2. accept the applicant > > And the reason for that is because people don't want to write reports! Isn't there a log file for every change in the databate to the application? The date of the last change could be included automatically. Also aren't mails between AM, DAM, Advocate and NM archived somewhere? Why not pull the timestamp of the last mail for that application from there. It would only require a "CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" or something in each mail which shouldn't be to hard on everyone. MfG Goswin
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:42:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Maybe an interface/filter for the bts that gives one a more easy > > access to packages with patches pending would be a start. > > Good grief, how easy do we have to make it? > > http://bugs.debian.org/tag:patch > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=&include=patch > > See the form at http://bugs.debian.org/ which gives pointy-clicky access > to these. Easier than that aparently. And don't tell me how to do it. Tell the DDs eager to upload debs with those patches merged in. MfG Goswin
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:42:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > Maybe an interface/filter for the bts that gives one a more easy > > access to packages with patches pending would be a start. Or a system > > Try http://bugs.debian.org/tag:patch . Still not easy enough it seems: # #19648: Please document (and handle) callback option better Package: ppp; Severity: minor; Reported by: Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 5 years and 146 days old. # #12411: example directory lister ignores errors Package: glibc-doc; Reported by: Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tags: patch; 5 years and 342 days old. Do you think any DD reads those? Do DDs care about Bugs with patches? And don't tell me glibc is unmaintained or ppp. Do you still claim that non-DDs can do work for debian simply by sending in patches? It sometimes works but your url is the best argument that it is totally disfunctional. Apart from that, whats the magic url to get the same but with dates since last activity? There could be a 5 year old bug with a 1 day old patch. I wouldn't want to NMU that without at least giving the maintainer a chance to look at the patch. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
Nicolas Bertolissio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le jeudi 7 août 2003, Jamin W. Collins écrit : > [...] > > Are you saying that you do not want, and would not welcome, > > feedback on your application? > No, > > > I'm not asking whether you would clamor > > for updates, but whether receiving them would be a problem for you? > No, but I don't need any, I just have to wait, as written on the web > page... As said before but you might have overread it. Last time I waited I suddenly got told by a new AM that I would have to start over due to my info getting lost somewhere and my old AM going MIA. A little bit of information from the DAM saying that he still waits for input from my AM would have been helpfull. But no, I was sitting in "Waiting for DAM approval" without any idea that I should have been kicking my AM to finish his job. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:27:00AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:31:23PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > It runs deeper than that. If you aren't sufficiently interested to do > > the work for its own sake, why the hell are you trying to join Debian > > in the first place? > > Because you think it's an awesome group with laudable goals and you > want to contribute? TBH, that's a lousy reason to join Debian. Send a cheque or something. I'm not sure there are any good ones other than having some specific (technical, not political) things you want to see done and are willing to do. In that case, you won't have to be told to demonstrate stuff - you'll just do it, because you want to. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | pgpQiJQ4y0D4i.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
Le jeudi 7 août 2003, Jamin W. Collins écrit : [...] > Are you saying that you do not want, and would not welcome, > feedback on your application? No, > I'm not asking whether you would clamor > for updates, but whether receiving them would be a problem for you? No, but I don't need any, I just have to wait, as written on the web page... Nicolas --
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 19:39, Oliver Bausinger wrote: > On Wednesday 06 August 2003 20:01, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > Interessting analysis. Many things that hold up the release can only be > > > solved by active and experienced maintainers since the packages are often > > > essential. New developers can help maintaining them in cooperation with > > > main developer and get the experience after some time and reading of the > > > policy, developers reference, lib packaging guide, etc, but having a > > > sponsor between them and the upload queue is still better. > > > > Someone should point NMs to difficulty of entering the development > > mainstream of FreeBSD or becoming maintainer for the kernel... > > IMO it's generally too easy entering in Debian. > > > > And someone should point the DDs to the difficulty of entering KDE. > I sent only and handful of patches, then asked for a CVS account and got it > within two days. KDE is a wonderful example of encouraging people. > I've always thought KDE a wonderful example of what happens when you give commit access to just about anybody too. Scott (GNOME user) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:47:38AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:38:34PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > > Anyway, waiting for DAM for some months now. I guess it has been > > 4-5 months now. I asked him on IRC when he might get arround to > > my application, but he just said when he has time... > > He actually replied? > > I saw him talking on irc and thus knew he was around and > breathing. But not even a "bugger off" reply when I asked him. Maybe you didn't ask right :) But you will probably get the same response as I got - he'll get arround to it when he has time. > > But I have no complains.. well, maybe except that every week or two > > the parties responsible for the applicant (eg, AM or DAM) should > > send out a status reports or something. That way there would be > > less stagnation in the entire process. Why? Because people want to > > do least amount of work to do their job. Just a suggestion. > > A simple timestamps on the application webpage showing the last time > the AM or DAM did anything with the application would be a plus > already. But *if* the DAM or AM would need to write a status report every week or two re: applications they are responsible for, there would be a tendancy to either: 1. reject the applicant (eg. when applicant doesn't reply to email or doesn't know what make does) 2. accept the applicant And the reason for that is because people don't want to write reports!
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:42:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Maybe an interface/filter for the bts that gives one a more easy > access to packages with patches pending would be a start. Good grief, how easy do we have to make it? http://bugs.debian.org/tag:patch http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=&include=patch See the form at http://bugs.debian.org/ which gives pointy-clicky access to these. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 06:00:53PM +0200, Nicolas Bertolissio wrote: > Le jeudi 7 ao?t 2003, Goswin von Brederlow ?crit : > > WE NMs WANT FEEDBACK. Someone please tell the DAM already to > > activate > > YOU, not 'we', YOU are impatient, YOU are cannot wait any more, > I am waiting for DAM approval, so I just wait... Just because you don't wish to be included in the 'we' doesn't mean there isn't more than just Goswin in the NM queue that would like to see updates and feedback. I know of several (myself included) that would like to see updates to their applications. Does this mean that we "cannot wait any more", no. We are still waiting. However, this doesn't mean that we are happy with the way the queue has been handled in the past. We see room for improvement. However, we are not in a position to directly effect a change of the situation. So, the options are to wait silently or attempt to change it through making others aware of the problems. It's not a question of "cannot wait any more" it's a question of courtesy. Are you saying that you do not want, and would not welcome, feedback on your application? I'm not asking whether you would clamor for updates, but whether receiving them would be a problem for you? -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
Re: About NM and Next Release
Le jeudi 7 août 2003, Goswin von Brederlow écrit : > WE NMs WANT FEEDBACK. Someone please tell the DAM already to activate YOU, not 'we', YOU are impatient, YOU are cannot wait any more, I am waiting for DAM approval, so I just wait... Nicolas Bertolissio --
Re: Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:42:36PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Maybe an interface/filter for the bts that gives one a more easy > access to packages with patches pending would be a start. Or a system Try http://bugs.debian.org/tag:patch . -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Re: About NM and Next Release
Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:50:03AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Then he should spend the 10 minutes it takes to implement a "reject" > > button on the webpage he can just press to reject someone. > > After that rejecting would be a matter of seconds. > > > > The AM has to write down a (reasonable and reasonate) report for rejection, > not only press a button on a web page. That is 'more work'... And the DAM? And aparently there are some NM in the queue he just doesn't like for some reason. Is it fair to let them hang in limbo if he can't even write down any reason for not liking them? MfG Goswin
Getting patches into packages, thought and ideas [Was: Re: About NM and Next Release]
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Moin Goswin! > Goswin von Brederlow schrieb am Thursday, den 07. August 2003: > > > > > Working on boot-floppies and debian-installer is not realy fruitfull > > > > as non-DD. cvs access goes a long way there. > > > > > > I must have severe reading and parsing problems today, because I don't > > > understand what you are saying. The way we handle this in d-i, is that we > > > encourage contributors to send patches to the mailing list. If the patches > > > are good, we apply them. When we get tired of applying good patches, we > > > get the person a pserver cvs account. When we get tired of uploading their > > > packages, we bug them to become developers and carefully prod elmo about > > > it, too. > > > > e.g. my devfs patches never got added to boot-floppies to my knowledge > > and I never got told what would be wrong with them. > > Somehow I cannot remember devfs patches from you - was it in the time > when Adam was the main developer? Currently BenC is working on basic > devfs integration, feel free to help. It was between potato and woody and I had a complete diff to make the to be woody boot-floppies work with a 2.4.x kernel with devfs including, a bit later, the neccessary patches for sysvinit and some other tools to make devfs/non-devfs transparent to the config. But its water under the bridge. > > For the mklibs.py changes Falk Hueffner was luckily intrested and I > > can prod him physically so he coauthored and got them added. Without > > him I wouldn't have bothered trying to write patches due to my > > boot-floppies experience. > > What we need is a database with simple mailing list function (similar to > PTS) where willing sponsors for a certain package can subscribe and > sponsorees with much motivation can send diffs for the next version > upgrade. Easy to review and check, easy to build and upload. And easy to > comment and communicate with other sponsors or co-maintainers. Like the Patch Manager on Sourceforge? Maybe an interface/filter for the bts that gives one a more easy access to packages with patches pending would be a start. Or a system like the translation system. When a patch is in BTS without a reaction from the maintainer for some time its send to some idle maintainer for review. If hes unresponsive within a week/month the patch is resend to the next and so on. Or that lengthily discussed wag-a-bug game where maintainers get assigned older pending bugs and get points for fixing. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:30:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > > > Someone should point NMs to difficulty of entering the development > > > mainstream of FreeBSD or becoming maintainer for the kernel... > > > IMO it's generally too easy entering in Debian. > > > > You can get access to the gcc cvs simply by showing your ability to > > work on gcc within a few month. The time it takes to get access > > depends on the amount and quality of your work (and paying 1 Euro for > > some stickers while signing over your copyright to the FSF). > > Right. The same for me to enter debian. And u can have access to > some debian cvs repositories without being a DD at all. __some__ and cvs is the smallest part > The key is 'the amount and quality of your work'. > This is relative to the point of view of people who grant accesses. > Someone has that low, some other higher. Who is right? None can say. > When someone will find a quantitive and universal method to measure that, > we should solve all problems. All the rest is gossip and flaming. Different to most other projects its one man and one man allone that likes or dislikes you or just ignores you because its raining that decides when he creates accounts and for whom. WE NMs WANT FEEDBACK. Someone please tell the DAM already to activate his -v switch. Its the least he can do. MfG Goswin
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:25:03PM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:50:03AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Then he should spend the 10 minutes it takes to implement a "reject" > > button on the webpage he can just press to reject someone. > > After that rejecting would be a matter of seconds. > > The AM has to write down a (reasonable and reasonate) report for rejection, > not only press a button on a web page. That is 'more work'... Isn't it teh DAM we're talking about here? I thought the AM just made a reccomendation to the committee for acception or rejection. Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li 8DEC67C5
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:33:08PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > What we need is a database with simple mailing list function (similar to > PTS) where willing sponsors for a certain package can subscribe and > sponsorees with much motivation can send diffs for the next version > upgrade. Easy to review and check, easy to build and upload. And easy to > comment and communicate with other sponsors or co-maintainers. > Yep, sponsoring system is currently a bit caothic due to lack of adequate tools. That's one of the few reasonable ideas in this damn long flamewar^Wthread... -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:50:03AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Then he should spend the 10 minutes it takes to implement a "reject" > button on the webpage he can just press to reject someone. > After that rejecting would be a matter of seconds. > The AM has to write down a (reasonable and reasonate) report for rejection, not only press a button on a web page. That is 'more work'... -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: About NM and Next Release
> On [06/08/03 17:29], Halil Demirezen wrote: > > What I would like to point out here is, totally over the world claims > > that debian is being obsolete. New releases are so slow. Yes they are > > Why do you you think that "over the world" Debian is "being obsolete"? > Do you have some evidence or proof for your argument? I gotto make clear myself before I go any further. I know Debian is well documented project. However, As far I see, for a new release, as one said in the re: mails, every package should be handled for bugs.. I think Debian as being a well elite ( I do not mean that is bad) project, has not got enough *man power* to step fast ahead. While everybody wants to see latest versions in Debian, you cant close your ears acting like "if you want, do then". S, when I stress it out here, People ask me to show evidences. Yes, I have to take a note showing that people said what and when. > > > partially right. However, with 700 maintainers, Debian is slow. We would > > I don't think that Debian itself is slow, only the current release > process might be slow. > Debian is like a hive. Not slow, However, to me, compared to others, with these much of people (developer), And I believe, there are maintainers who are not diligent as some who are non-DDs. what I want is Debian should have more developer and these developers should act as bees in the hive. IMHO, NM process does not satisfy the needs currently. It must be, however not the way it is now. Dont ask me "show me a way what it is supposed to be". > > like to be a part of Debian through NM process. However, NM process > > cause a deeply undesireble emotions on applicants because of 2-3 > > years wait duration. To me, opposing to the policies Debian is on > > Altough I'm one of those people who consider the current NM process to > need further improvement, I'm not agreeing here with you. As far as I > know there are not more then a handful of applicants waiting for such > a period of time. And according to others, this are applicants that > James Troup (the current DAM) doesn't want to accept. So while the > current NM process is flawed and especially it can take quite some time > to wait for the DAM to process the application it's not taking 2-3 years > normally. > Debian or any release based projects should not have any time like 2-3 years to gain a developer at worst. > > We believe we could be helpful. However, We are trying to be cut off > > from that project. Totally this is agaist prejudice on Policies.. and > > DFSG. > > No, that's not correct. Nobody is trying to cut you off from Debian at > all. Please show clear evidence where you are really cut off from > Debian, otherwise it's one of the strangest arguments that I've heared > from a new maintainer so far. > Noone declares that he/she wants to cut any outcomer off from Debian. So, I cant provide an evidence here. However, some can have discrimination and he can tolerate his actions based upon this. > Christian > -- >Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org) > 1024D/B7CEC7E8 44BD 1F9E A997 3BE2 A44F 96A4 1C98 EEF3 B7CE C7E8 pgpIU5llZeUA3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NM and Next Release
Moin Goswin! Goswin von Brederlow schrieb am Thursday, den 07. August 2003: > > > Working on boot-floppies and debian-installer is not realy fruitfull > > > as non-DD. cvs access goes a long way there. > > > > I must have severe reading and parsing problems today, because I don't > > understand what you are saying. The way we handle this in d-i, is that we > > encourage contributors to send patches to the mailing list. If the patches > > are good, we apply them. When we get tired of applying good patches, we > > get the person a pserver cvs account. When we get tired of uploading their > > packages, we bug them to become developers and carefully prod elmo about > > it, too. > > e.g. my devfs patches never got added to boot-floppies to my knowledge > and I never got told what would be wrong with them. Somehow I cannot remember devfs patches from you - was it in the time when Adam was the main developer? Currently BenC is working on basic devfs integration, feel free to help. > For the mklibs.py changes Falk Hueffner was luckily intrested and I > can prod him physically so he coauthored and got them added. Without > him I wouldn't have bothered trying to write patches due to my > boot-floppies experience. What we need is a database with simple mailing list function (similar to PTS) where willing sponsors for a certain package can subscribe and sponsorees with much motivation can send diffs for the next version upgrade. Easy to review and check, easy to build and upload. And easy to comment and communicate with other sponsors or co-maintainers. MfG, Eduard. -- Lieber einen von innen verstellbaren Außenspiegel, als einen von außen verstellbaren Innenspiegel.
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 09:30:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > Someone should point NMs to difficulty of entering the development > > mainstream of FreeBSD or becoming maintainer for the kernel... > > IMO it's generally too easy entering in Debian. > > You can get access to the gcc cvs simply by showing your ability to > work on gcc within a few month. The time it takes to get access > depends on the amount and quality of your work (and paying 1 Euro for > some stickers while signing over your copyright to the FSF). Right. The same for me to enter debian. And u can have access to some debian cvs repositories without being a DD at all. The key is 'the amount and quality of your work'. This is relative to the point of view of people who grant accesses. Someone has that low, some other higher. Who is right? None can say. When someone will find a quantitive and universal method to measure that, we should solve all problems. All the rest is gossip and flaming. -- Francesco P. Lovergine
Re: About NM and Next Release
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 12:59:41PM +0300, Halil Demirezen wrote: > While I was reading that, I would like to say here, For example, even > after checked ID, I am not pointed as checked ID. This is even > discouraging. I am asking myself what is happening wrong with what I > cant see the process though I am in that. Ask your application manager about that. It's his responsibility and ability to update the "ID Check" field. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About NM and Next Release
Le jeudi 7 août 2003, Goswin von Brederlow écrit : > Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > > Also, it seems like most DD's don't maintain many packages anyway. Yes > > there are other things that a DD can do other than just maintain > > packages, like help with web translations, boot floppies, etc. But nearly [...] > And for translations, doesn't the automatic translation mechanism > (that sends you package descriptions to translate) only for for DDs? > Not sure though since I know I can't be trusted to translate stuff. [...] Are you talking about the DDTS? you don't need to be a DD to translate and proofread translations. Just send mails to the server (and use ddtc and acheck if you want to make your job easier). Translating and proofreading, wml, po and others, do not require you to be a DD, at least, not for the French team, and it works very well like this. Nicolas Bertolissio --
