Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Call for moderation and mediation: debian-live vs. debian-live-ng

On 11/20/2015 11:53 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 10:52 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>>> Am I the only one who is sad, knowing that Daniel probably feels really
>>> miserable right now? Or just nobody sees that?!?
>> I don't think so. But the question becomes one of, what can we still do
>> for him at this point?
> At least let him know and comfort him, and explain to him we're sorry
> for how it happened, thankful for his past work, and that we still want
> him to contribute to Debian. Right now, from his point of view, he just
> got kicked further away, and nobody cares, or even worse: that a
> majority of us wishes he disappears.
>> Obviously, a mistake was made. But it has been corrected since; Iain has
>> reneged on the -ng name, and apologised for it[1].
> This naming thing is a joke. The problem isn't the name, of course. The
> problem is Iain writing:
> "live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is
> replacing  it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is
> deprecated. live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with
> debian-cd and D-I."
> Though later on, he writes:
> "The naming of the package live-build-ng was not intended to serve as a
> request for live-build development to stop"
> The naming is probably not too offensive. Though writing that live-build
> is deprecated and replaced is, and that's the bit which made Daniel stop
> live-build.
> Correct me if I am wrong here, but as much as I know, Daniel has always
> been there to produce the live images the day of the release, and he
> seemed to very much enjoy publishing the Live image and being part of
> the release process. So I don't really understand why there was so much
> the need for integrating the generation the live images together with
> the ISO images. Even if it wasn't completely in sync (I'm not 100% sure
> if it was the case), having the live images a bit disconnected isn't
> such a big deal. So why all of this? Why not just let Daniel do his
> stuff? If live-build was perfectible, it did the work, and as much as I
> know, mostly everyone was happy about the final resulting images.
>> At this point, it's
>> up to Daniel to choose to accept that apology and move on, or to decide
>> that the whole project is up in arms against him and refuse to move on.
> That's a distortion of the reality. The project has decided to stop
> using the live images he was producing, leaving him with no choice.
> That's the reality he is in. Please don't make it look as he's the bad
> one because he isn't interested in maintaining a project which builds
> live images that wont be the official ones. That's perfectly
> understandable to give-up live-build if it's not used to produce the
> official Debian live, and I believe anyone would have done the same.
>> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/11/msg00132.html
> In this message, I see that Iain is still saying that his software goal
> is to take over live-build, and that at some point, it will replace it.
> So to me, there's nothing changed in the original problem. The excuse
> for the naming wont change anything. Whatever Daniel does, live-build
> will be taken over, and the live images will be built without him, by
> the debian-cd team. And he has nothing to say about it.
> Gosh, am I the only one who sees that?!?
>> If he chooses to do the latter, there's very little the project can do,
>> other than fall on its knees and say "sorry we've hurt you in the past,
>> please come back to us. I don't think we should do that.
> Well, we can still make the decision to revert the take over of the live
> images he has successfully produced for nearly 10 years.
> If we don't do that (which I would understand, as it is still better to
> have a unified single push button to make a release that includes the
> live images), I would consider the least as we could do to at least
> explain to him why it has been done, that we thank him for the past
> work, and that we're sorry that it has been taken over this way. So more
> or less, what Steve has written. Just letting him go this way without
> even a word for him is not correct.
> Cheers,
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)

In the light of what the 3 replies, please only consider only the social
part of the above, where I am saying that we should at least communicate
a bit with Daniel. I still believe it's necessary.

I do understand better why it's been done. I really thought that so far,
Daniel was doing the point releases. I'm sorry to hear it wasn't the case.

Thanks to Neil, Steve and Stefano for their reply.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index