[pkg-go] Bug#818580: ITP: golang-github-prometheus-client-model -- data model artifacts for Prometheus

[Martín Ferrari]

On 23/03/16 01:36, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 1:17:27 AM AEDT Martín Ferrari wrote:

>> Well, now we have two versions of the same thing in the repository,
>> which will need to be maintained separately. We could have instead fixed
>> the namespace issue.
> 
> There is no drama about that. You can drop duplicated file from your -common 
> package since upstream no longer ship it as part of prometheus-common.

Sorry, but you are completely off-base.

You have uploaded a package that is not used at all, because you did not
check what you were uploading. It is your error, not mine.

>> But this goes way further than that:
>>
>> * You are packaging the whole upstream tree, which is supposed to
>> provide bindings for many different languages, which you are not
>> providing, nor the naming of the source package is reflecting.
> 
> You are welcome to work on that if you wish.

I have no intention on picking up the pieces of what you do, and I
certainly don't appreciate your condescending tone.

>> * In nomad you are also build-depending on the common library, which
>> includes the protobuf. So instead of building a different package you
>> could have renamed the protobuf file, or something.
> 
> I could but I've chosen to package dependency instead to preserve name space.
> Why do you have problem with that?

Because:

* This is not a direct dependency of nomad. Have you checked the code?
* This was already packaged and working correctly.
* This is useless and clutters the debian archive.
* You chose to rush things instead of working with the team.
* After being pointed to the problem you continued to ignore the team.

>> * But actually, nomad *does not* use this libraries (I just ran grep -r
>> on the source tree). These build-dependenies are spurious, it is
>> actually a dependency of golang-github-armon-go-metrics, which uses the
>> prometheus client library, which makes all this stuff transparent.
> 
> I see... Thanks for explaining. However please note that Nomad-0.3.1 dropped 
> some dependencies that I packaged in order to upload 0.3.0.

I don't know what you are talking about. In the git repo that you
uploaded Nomad DOES NOT use prometheus directly, adding this as a
dependency in nomad is a bug in the packaging.

Can you justify your need for this?

>> Dmitry, I have to be blunt, I find this attitude pretty upsetting, and
>> very much not in the spirit of team work..
> 
> I hate to bring that argument but I'm not thrilled to be the most active 
> maintainer on the team.

I don't know why you mention this, care to elaborate?

> I need to get things done within very limited time
> that I often borrow heavily from my sleep.

I don't know why you need to do this in such a rush, but clearly the
rush is affecting the quality of what is left for the team.

> Could you please explain to which
> of my actions specifically upset you? Packaging of minor dependency that your 
> package provides but really shouldn't?

See above.

>> IF there was some issue (but there was none), we could have tried to
>> find some solution that avoided this.
> 
> You are really complaining about minor thing and FYI when I got your email 
> I've already uploaded client-model package. I could not take immediate action 

Sorry, but that is because you failed to do your job properly.
Otherwise, you would have never uploaded this.

> back then (and I dod not seem it neccessary) and when I got back to it 
> package was alreadyy accepted. And frankly I'm happy about it.

So you are happy about uploading something you don't need that disrupts
the team work and clutters the archive?

>> You saw the package was a duplicate, and that it was owned by the team
>> even, but ignored that.
> 
> Could you please elaborate what did you expected me to do?

You should have noticed that you did not need this package at all. If
you had needed it, you should have talked with the team to find a proper
solution.

>> It is already the third time I have to tell you that you are about to
>> upload a duplicate package because you had not looked before.
> 
> Wow. I'm surprised. Could you please kindly refresh my memory about two other 
> incidents?

#798161 and #798158. September 2015

-- 
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)