Please write about your intentions before doing changes

Wed Mar 9 12:59:29 UTC 2016

Hi Manuel,

>

>Il Mercoledì 9 Marzo 2016 13:29, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>Hi Gianfranco,
>
>I find it a bit rude that you keep changing things, commiting and
>uploading, before asking or declaring your intentions, and then asking
>"is everything OK" and asking for permission to e.g. reupload to
>DELAYED/0 only later; even when you know that other people are
>actively keeping an eye on things.

ok, sorry for that, the reason is an imminent transition, I asked -release to
avoid useless binNMUs because of the RC bug

>This behaviur is "pushy", and forces the person who might want to say
>"no" to enter in a conflict between pointing out errors or not go
>ahead so quickly and being rude.
>If you know that you want to do those changes, why not declare your
>intentions first, when you know that other people are actively working
>on it?

actually I thought there were issues, because of your mail about build
failures with the qsort implementation.
When I tried, and everything worked well, I thought they were fixed, so I
pushed

>So sorry if this or the following comes across as a bit rude, but I
>don't have any other alternative by now, other than remain silent.

I can dcut in any minute, (and I already dcutted them as soon as I received
this email)

>Secondly, you clobbered the tag of libsdl1.2 and a version which is
>already uploaded to unstable:

that was a mistake, for some reasons master didn't contain the changes in -2 upload
so I had to gbp import-dsc and push again.

not sure what caused the issue, but it was an honest mistake (not even sure why git
pull didn't fetch the new tag).

I don't know what happened, changes weren't there, and the tag seems to have been there
but not pulled.
Feel free to push whatever you prefer, if you have a better git history

>Thirdly, as I already told you in a private e-mail a few days ago when
>you asked (so you were fully aware of it), I wanted to wait a bit for
>the SDL_qsort stuff to use the opportunity to try to get SDL people to
>do an upstream release, or perhaps the alternative to pack whatever is
>in current VCS, since we have to have a new "orig" tarball anyway.

the problem was an imminent release, as it was for sdl1.2.
I'm fine with the new upstream version, but it isn't there, and upstream developers
strips the mail list from their replies, so I can't know if progresses are made
(none if I read everything correctly).

>Just two months ago they declared their intentions to not repeat the
>situation as between 2.0.3 and 2.0.4 of spending more than 2 years
>without a release; but since 2.0.4 they already started to push
>full-steam-ahead and there are more than a hundred changes in a short
>period of 2 months and they don't want to do a minor release, I am
<quite sure that we're going to see the same situation again of many
>months or years without a bugfix release.  This is a situation that
>it's not ideal to us at all.

I fully agree there

>Apart from that, it was me who communicated back and forth and helped
>to drive the situation with the license to a happy end by notifying
>the different parties (after Ben's offer).  Getting this resolved at
>the source is more important than doing things only on the Debian
>side.
>
>So the legal situation is clear and solving it in this way was hugely
>benefitial; but uploading a fix for this was not urgent, and possibly
>not even legally necessary, and fixing other cosmetic-only issues like
>the VCS thing as you did was not urgen either (that maybe will be
>fixed in another way by using relative URLs, according to the
>discussion in -devel that died a bit, but might be revived).  Doing
>gratiutous uploads is not free for the Debian infrastructure nor for
>thousands of people who have to download files for a cosmetic issue
>that they don't even see in the binary package and that are of no
>importance whatsoever, once the author relicensed the code.

well, the upload was to avoid an useless binNMU, not for cosmetic changes.
Since the infrastructure will need a full rebuild, I thought speeding up
the changes was "the best option"

>Fourthly, I was also "on top" of the situation of libsdl1.2, in fact I
>was the only one replying to the bug report in more than a week,
>before you posted announcing the upload after the fact.  If this was
>part of a transition, fact that I didn't know and it wasn't even
>announced in debian-release, you (or the original submitter, or
>somebody else) could have let me know and I could have decided to go
>ahead with this.  Or we can wait until it's really needed, and maybe
>changes for more transitions are made effective in a single upload
>(libsdl1.2 will be affected by many transitions between now and the
>release, I suspect).

I dcutted it, so feel free to upload when necessary.
I saw the auto transition in place
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-directfb.html
>So, all in all, at least I don't find very comfortable when you do
>these things.  If you really want to help, please announce your
>intentions at least before you upload, or even commit things to VCS.
>I have the bad habit of not doing this sometimes, but that's because
>I'm almost the only one that was doing changes and uploading things to
>the SDL packages for years, so sometimes I forget that other people
>might be working on things, but this is not the case.
>So could you please cancel the uploads, revert the +pending in the BTS, etc?

I already did this before reading the last part. sorry but I was in a hurry, and I
honestly just tried to help
(I tried a lot but my flu didn't allow me, so I was happy to help a little bit
after recovering from it)

I'll delete the tags, and wait for your uploads then :)

sorry again

cheers,

Gianfranco