Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Brian May, 2015-10-07] > > Probably... Now, I've followed your orders not to use Git, General > > Piotr, so why complaining again?!? > > > > Unfortunately, terms like "General Piotr" start looking like personal > attacks; not going to help your arguments. I take it as a compliment (it's a high

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 at 00:32 Thomas Goirand wrote: > You've only enforced *your own* policy, backed-up by only a small vocal > minority, taking the rule to the extreme (ie: a few days before the Git > migration, it's still not ok to start new projects using Git, according > to

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 11:36 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > my point is that you could argue that your packages are better > maintained than ours (less bug reports, wider Python 3 support, > newest upstream releases, more popcon users, ...) but you choose the > fact that you maintain more of them... and then

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you to > re-engage productively. I wrote it to you privately. You can't just tell that it's going to be a temporary ban, without giving a timeline. You avoided to answer my

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/05/2015 11:17 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:00 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > >> The things you listed that I help maintain - mock, testtools, etc - >> are *not* OpenStack specific. They existed before OpenStack, and >> likely will exist after. They have other users,

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons >> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and > > it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to have more > maintainers with few

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Thomas Goirand, 2015-10-06] > On 10/06/2015 06:21 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > >> I probably have more Python modules in my QA page than all the persons > >> involved in this thread... *combined*! No, it's not a competition, and > > > > it's about quantity and not about quality then? I prefer to

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Thomas Goirand writes: > You can't write this: > > On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > causes me to doubt the sincerity of this. > > and this: > > On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I don't think you're intentionally malicious. > > a few hours

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

You can't write this: On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > causes me to doubt the sincerity of this. and this: On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I don't think you're intentionally malicious. a few hours apart, and get away with it. Take your pick... am I an evil liar

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 01:43 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >>> As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you >>> to re-engage productively. >> I wrote it to you

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

(I was asked not to reply anymore, and I was doing it quite happily, but since it involves a private conversation between Thomas and me, I need to step in) >> I think that generally when one transgresses on someone else's package in a >> way the maintainer doesn't like it's the responsibility of

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 03:31 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May > wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman >> wrote: >> >>> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 09:24:42 AM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/06/2015 02:12 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > As I said up thread, I think a break from the team will be helpful for you > > to re-engage productively. > I wrote it to you privately. You can't just tell that it's going to be a >

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Thomas Goirand, 2015-10-06] > You're still avoiding to answer what are the conditions for me to get > back in the team. he did answer and I did as well (see my first private email to you). One more time: you were removed from the team because you promise to change behaviour and then repeat the

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 6 October 2015 at 01:51, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote: >> On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC >>> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: > * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC > bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in Sid, even > though upstream (Robert Collins) is employed by HP and knew OpenStack > Kilo (currently in Sid) would break

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 2015-10-05 23:45:57 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote: [...] > Upstream will *not* fix the issue, because you know, they "fixed" it in > their CI by adding an upper version bound in the pip requirements, which > is fine for them in the gate. It is fixed in OpenStack Liberty though, > which I

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May wrote: >On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman >wrote: > >> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when >called >> on it. If you'd just reacted with something like

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this >kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen. Ubuntu at least does have a technical solution that helps ameliorate archive-wide breakages, and

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality. >Were these bad tests? Did you report these issues upstream? Silently passing broken tests was one of a common pattern of issues I found when making Python 3.5

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Oct 05, 2015, at 09:16 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >Isn't this the whole point of unstable→testing? I guess, although it seems a lot of people run unstable so breakages affect more people. I run unstable on most of my Debian machines. I think almost nobody actually runs -proposed. Cheers,

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:11:26PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > >In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this > >kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen. > > Ubuntu at least does have

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Monday, October 05, 2015 05:11:26 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 05, 2015, at 02:51 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >In other distributions (Red Hat and Ubuntu), everyone is aware of this > >kind of issue before uploading, and this kinds of things don't happen. > > Ubuntu at least does have a

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:26:38PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Oct 05, 2015, at 09:16 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > >Isn't this the whole point of unstable→testing? > > I guess, although it seems a lot of people run unstable so breakages affect > more people. I run unstable on most of my

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Oct 06, 2015, at 07:00 AM, Robert Collins wrote: >The things you listed that I help maintain - mock, testtools, etc - >are *not* OpenStack specific. They existed before OpenStack, and >likely will exist after. They have other users, particularly mock >which is very widely used. I intensely

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/05/2015 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality. That's not what I did, I blacklisted these unit tests which were failing, and kept all the others. As these unit tests were anyway broken, it doesn't mater much. > Were

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On October 5, 2015 7:02:58 PM EDT, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Technically right, but socially wrong is wrong. > >I got that point, yes. > >> Reading that and what you >> wrote above, does that help you understand why I question

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman wrote: > Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when called > on it. If you'd just reacted with something like "Oops, made a mistake, > I'll > revert it from svn and ask for it to be removed from

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Monday, October 05, 2015 11:45:57 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/05/2015 04:57 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: ... > >> It is also to be noted that mock is maintained by upstream OpenStack > >> people (ie: Robert Collins), and therefore, should be released in Debian > >> at the same time as other

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/06/2015 12:33 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Technically right, but socially wrong is wrong. I got that point, yes. > Reading that and what you > wrote above, does that help you understand why I question both your focus and > the sincerity of your expressions of regret. The words that I'm

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote: > On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC >> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in Sid, even >> though upstream (Robert Collins) is employed by HP and

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Monday, October 05, 2015 02:51:26 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 10/05/2015 09:37 AM, Michael Fladischer wrote: > > On 2015-09-30 10:53, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> * The maintainer of mock uploaded version 1.3 to Sid, which created RC > >> bugs (FTBFS) on maybe more than 20 packages currently in

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/29/2015 04:02 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote: > but I'm not sure that having someone > blindly upload my packages if they haven't worked on them before is a > good idea. If this is what you think of my upload, I don't agree with the above wording at least. On 09/29/2015 04:02 PM, Tristan

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/29/2015 02:11 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> Are >> there any specific changes you object to > > As for the technical aspects, tests were disabled mentioning they > access internet (and from the code it is not clear at all if they do, > and I kinda doubt that) It clearly showed access to the

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/29/2015 03:48 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored >> >> either policy changes or this has to stop at some point. > > A few observations. > > The policy should perhaps be

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 09/29/2015 02:11 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >>> Are >>> there any specific changes you object to >> >> As for the technical aspects, tests were disabled mentioning they >> access internet (and from the code it is not clear

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015, at 01:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > This has driven > some contributors away in the past, thinking we don't have team spirit. > IMO, that's truth, and this kind of thread is hurting again. Just to back this up: watching threads like this go past makes working on/with Debian

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I'd much prefer he was spending time reviewing jtaylor's patch to fix the > python-numpy FTBFS on powerpc instead of being distracted by this argument. slightly off topic here, but I plan to look at it and (if

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 30 September 2015 at 10:26, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015, at 01:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> This has driven >> some contributors away in the past, thinking we don't have team spirit. >> IMO, that's truth, and this kind of thread is hurting again. > >

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

> I see nothing wrong with Goirand's upload. I believe Sandro Tosi is > still using the pre-binNMU, pre-NMU, pre-LowNMU, pre-Team packaging > maintenance mentality which is not the commonly accepted behaviour and > mentality in Debian anymore. this is not a binNMU (which is irrelevant here), nor

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On September 30, 2015 6:47:57 AM EDT, Sandro Tosi wrote: >On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Scott Kitterman > wrote: >> I'd much prefer he was spending time reviewing jtaylor's patch to fix >the python-numpy FTBFS on powerpc instead of being distracted by

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 09/29/2015 03:48 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> >>> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored >>> >>> either policy changes or this has to

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On September 30, 2015 6:27:02 AM EDT, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: >On 30 September 2015 at 10:26, Thomas Kluyver >wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015, at 01:53 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> This has driven >>> some contributors away in the past, thinking we

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 at 10:45 Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 09/29/2015 04:02 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote: > > but I'm not sure that having someone > > blindly upload my packages if they haven't worked on them before is a > > good idea. > > If this is what you think of my upload, I

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 09/30/2015 12:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> He knew it violated team norms and just didn't care. > > That's not what I wrote. > > I went into packages.d.o, saw DPMT, and a bit too fast, thought it was > team

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 09/30/2015 12:45 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> nor is uploading a package just for their own interest and then let >> the maintainer fix the mistakes done. This has happened in the past, >> most of the times with Thomas,

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 05:40 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:26:08PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> I've done hundreds of uploads. Lots of them uploading stuff maintained >> within the DPMT. So far, only a single person complained... > That's not really true. Ah, correct, there

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:26:08PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I've done hundreds of uploads. Lots of them uploading stuff maintained > within the DPMT. So far, only a single person complained... That's not really true. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 11:15 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > yeah that's it, you care only about pkg-openstack and has no interest > to be a member of this team No ! > (as it's proved by the fact you keep > uploading general-purposes python modules under pkg-openstak umbrella) This is due to the fact we're not

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 12:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > He knew it violated team norms and just didn't care. That's not what I wrote. I went into packages.d.o, saw DPMT, and a bit too fast, thought it was team maintained and that an upload would be accepted. Yes, I knew the rule, but no I didn't just

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 12:45 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > nor is uploading a package just for their own interest and then let > the maintainer fix the mistakes done. This has happened in the past, > most of the times with Thomas, that's enough. Sandro, I've done hundreds of uploads. Lots of them uploading

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On 09/30/2015 11:15 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > so long for "Finger-pointing is pointless loss of time for everyone." > just a few lines above.. It wasn't the goal of my 2 examples.

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On September 29, 2015 7:55:36 AM EDT, Julien Cristau wrote: >On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:26:44 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > >> Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been >ignored >> >>

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored > >either policy changes or this has to stop at some point. A few observations. The policy should perhaps be better promoted or more explicitly written. The links you

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Sandro Tosi, 2015-09-29] > Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored > > http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html#maintainership > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin > > either policy changes or this has to stop at

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html#maintainership https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin either policy changes or this has to stop at some point. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:26:44 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored > > http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html#maintainership > https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin > > either

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

> OTOH, this is experimental. It's not like this upload has any effect on > anyone except to let Thomas work on packages that depend on it. still the policy defines a set of rules that apply to any debian suites, or are you suggesting that experimental is not cover by those rules and we could do

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Hi, Le mardi 29 sept. 2015 à 09:48:16 (-0400), Barry Warsaw a écrit : > On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > >Once again, the python policy about Maintainer/Uploaders has been ignored > > > >either policy changes or this has to stop at some point. > > A few observations. > >

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Sep 29, 2015, at 02:02 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote: >After reading this thread, I feel like I should go through all of my >packages and remove the team from Maintainer for all of them. I try very >hard to respond promptly to pings (bugs, email, IRC, ...) about my >packages, even if it's just

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 at 15:48 Barry Warsaw wrote: > The wiki says that the general rule of thumb is to set the team as > Maintainer, > to which I agree. I may not have been as deliberate about my own > packages, so > I plan on reviewing them, and will fix any that aren't

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Barry Warsaw, 2015-09-29] > On Sep 29, 2015, at 05:40 PM, Julien Puydt wrote: > > >- I want lintian not to bug me about NMU ; > > This one's easy. Just put "Team upload" in the changelog (e.g. `dch --team`). it's even easier than that... add yourself to Uploaders (you're maintaining it after

Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

Le mardi 29 sept. 2015 à 20:40:11 (+0200), Piotr Ożarowski a écrit : > [Barry Warsaw, 2015-09-29] > > On Sep 29, 2015, at 05:40 PM, Julien Puydt wrote: > > > > >- I want lintian not to bug me about NMU ; > > > > This one's easy. Just put "Team upload" in the changelog (e.g. `dch > > --team`).