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.
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
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.
>  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.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)