[Aptitude-devel] Aptitude 0.6.10-1 (mentors.d.n)

Tue Feb 11 15:30:53 UTC 2014

Hi,

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> 2014-02-10 09:32 Daniel Hartwig:
> >On 10 February 2014 17:00, Daniel Hartwig <mandyke at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 10 February 2014 16:00, Daniel Hartwig <mandyke at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>Your upload of the package 'aptitude' to mentors.debian.net was
> >>>successful. Others can now see it. The URL of your package is:
> >>>http://mentors.debian.net/package/aptitude
> >>>
> >>>The respective dsc file can be found at:
> >>>http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/aptitude/aptitude_0.6.10-1.dsc

I'll have a look at it.

I'm though a little bit surprised about the version number as there
was no discussion beforehand (besides mentioning it about two years
ago and one mentioning by me in a question about 0.6.10 vs 0.7) at all
about it. The changes in the proposed upload though definitely
validate this version number.

In my proposal I focussed on a git workflow because most of the heated
discussion was about commits and reverts in the past while e.g. the
0.6.8.4 uploads were discussed and there was a consesus in the end.

To work as a team we _all_ must _avoid_ to upset others, also by not
doing bigger decisions without discussion before.

> >>Will upload again soon, just updating some libdevel files on this machine first.
> >
> >Done.

Like Manuel, I missunderstood these sentences first, too, but I now
think you talk of a reupload to mentors.debian.net, not to Debian
itself.

> There are several things wrong with what you have done:

While there seems no bad word in Manuel's mail, for me there swings
bad temper and aggressiveness in that mail -- which can make things
worse. I know it's hard and e-mail is a medium which doesn't transport
emotions well and hence leaves room for interpretation of emotions --
often in the wrong direction.

> - You didn't participate yet in the discussion about working together
>   effectively,

Daniel agreed to the workflow only in a private mail. I expected to see a
public mail from him, too, but IIRC none came.

>   still you found time to go ahead with this without even
>   announcing it

Yeah, I was very surprised about that move, too. I strongly suggest
that we start future releases with proposals.

But then again, the upload was only to mentors.d.n (twice as it seems)
and hence could be seen as a proposal. IMHO not the smoothest way to
do such a proposal, but acceptable.

>   If you're not going to abide to the proposed rules, the rest don't
>   have to do it, either.

Well, there wasn't yet a specific proposal about how to do releases
yet, was there?

> - We were discussing what to do with the releases, in particular
>   considering if it was a good idea coupling the packaging change of
>   enabling the russian documentation or not, which has effects on the
>   delay for the package to get to the users.

Yeah, but I don't think that's not a big issue as the discussion
IIRC showed advantages of both variants and we did more discuss about
putting the russian docs in 0.6.8.4-1 or not than if the next release
will be 0.6.8.4-2 or 0.6.8.5-1 -- we didn't talk about the next
upstream release much yet IIRC.

So yeah, I'm fine with doing a new upstream release instead of
0.6.8.4-2 as the changes validate the version change. (see
http://semver.org/ -- and I'm ignoring the leading zero.)

I though think the way this was "announced" was suboptimal.

Additionally I think that tags on Debian packages should only be made
_after_ or at least at the same time of the upload to Debian. (c.f.
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=aptitude/aptitude.git;a=tag;h=e2c2cc8f43a947fce23092dce56ed11717888462)
At least that's the common workflow in e.g. the Debian Perl Team.

> - You didn't give the chance for Axel to reply (he replied later than
>   you created the release).

I don't want to suggest that Daniel would have uploaded to Debian if
DM-Upload-Allowed would be still in place, but I must admit that I've
read his mail first that way, too. (I hope I managed to remove all
things from this mail which were based on that misinterpretation.)

>   Initially the plans were that probably he was going to do this
>   release, and there was no indication to the contrary before you
>   pushed the release on your own.

I think I at least stated that I don't want to do an upload of any
important package while being sick. And that statement was not today
but IIRC yesterday. (And I'm still not yet fit again and sleeping a
lot.)

For non-DDs, uploads to mentors.debian.net are a common way to propose
uploads.

> - You didn't attribute the changes in the changelog to anybody but
>   you.

Oh, indeed. Not sure if I would have noticed.

>   No big deal for me, but if you complained about this recently
>   and are sensitive to these issues, you shouldn't do the same.

Independently of who complained about what -- when working together,
proper attribution in commits as well as changelogs should go without
saying.

I therefore propose to use the common changelog attribution style as
practised in 0.6.8.4-1. I'm fine with both substyles:

* Sorting the entries chronologically (i.e. that names can occur
  multiple times) 

* Sorting the entries by author (and then either chronologically or by
  importance)

Personally I tend to the latter.

Unfortunately there's no real common way to common way to properly
attribution changes done upstream. So I propose to do it similar to
how the lintian changelog mentions who did what (it's sorted by
changed files) -- by using the author's initials:

  * New upstream release.
    - [dth] New bla (Closes: #xyz)
    - [mafm] Fix fnord (Closes: #abc)
    - [mafm] New bar
    - [dth] Fix foo

  [ Daniel Hartwig ]
  * Some package foo

  [ Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo ]
  * Some package bla

Would that be ok for all?

I'm not sure about the upstream changelog: There never was any
attribution in there so far for upstream developers. Do we want to
change that? If so, I think using initials there is probably the least
invasive form to change the format.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe at debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/aptitude-devel/attachments/20140211/279a40dc/attachment.sig>