| sney | oh I see, I wasn't parsing the indents | 00:24 |
|---|---|---|
| === ssweeny` is now known as ssweeny | ||
| dholbach | good morning | 08:06 |
| === fabo_ is now known as fabo | ||
| === Guest49681 is now known as jrgifford | ||
| === mwenning is now known as mwenning-lunch | ||
| === med_` is now known as medberry | ||
| === medberry is now known as Guest50599 | ||
| === Guest50599 is now known as med_ | ||
| Logan_ | someone want to comment on this (positive/critical of what I said)? willing to receive either - just want to know if my response was good or not: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/188110 | 21:40 |
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 188110 in Debian "[needs-packaging] zmviewer" [Unknown,Fix released] | 21:40 |
| rbasak | Logan_: I'd say that "Won't Fix" implies that we'd refuse the package if somebody did prepare it. By definition, at that point, it'd be maintained so we'd be happy to carry it. So IMHO that status isn't really right. | 21:49 |
| Logan_ | idk, I didn't mean to be incendiary, but he took it that way | 21:49 |
| rbasak | No point fighting over a bug status though. | 21:49 |
| Logan_ | I was just trying to be realistic about something that hasn't been touched since 2008 | 21:50 |
| rbasak | "You want to decide what is better for me without my consent, which puts you in the same camp as censors and other freedom takers." doesn't make any sense either. | 21:50 |
| rbasak | Since he has root on his machine and can install from a PPA, etc. | 21:50 |
| rbasak | So I agree with you there. | 21:50 |
| ScottK | Logan_: Commented. | 21:52 |
| Logan_ | thanks guys :) | 21:52 |
| rbasak | ScottK: I'd still say that Won't Fix is wrong, though. Even if not uploaded directly to Ubuntu, once uploaded to Debian and synced, it'd be valid and then Fix Released. | 21:54 |
| rbasak | Won't Fix means that we'd refuse to carry it (even if through Debian), surely? | 21:55 |
| ScottK | No. | 21:55 |
| ScottK | That's not what wontfix means. | 21:55 |
| ScottK | That'd be invalid. | 21:55 |
| rbasak | Maybe https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Bug%20statuses should be fixed then | 21:55 |
| ScottK | rbasak: Why? "It may also be used for feature requests that the developers do not want to implement" seems to fit perfectly. | 21:56 |
| rbasak | We "want" to implement it. We "want" the package in Ubuntu (through Debian), at Wishlist importance. | 21:56 |
| ScottK | In any case, anyone waiting for a new package to appear based on a needs-packaging bug is highly likely to be dissappointed. | 21:57 |
| ScottK | That's tangential to an Ubuntu needs-packaging bug. | 21:57 |
| ScottK | An Ubuntu bug is about Ubuntu devs fixing stuff. | 21:57 |
| ScottK | We won't do it (wontfix), but get it in Debian if you can is quite reasonable (and typical). | 21:58 |
| rbasak | So we link a Debian ITP bug. | 21:58 |
| rbasak | The Ubuntu task gets marked Won't Fix. | 21:58 |
| rbasak | Debian packages it. Ubuntu syncs it. Then the right status for the Ubuntu task is Fix Released. But it won't do that because it's Won't Fix. | 21:58 |
| ScottK | Unless someone notices it and changes it. | 21:59 |
| rbasak | That's why I think it's wrong. Makes more sense to leave the Ubuntu task valid and open. | 21:59 |
| rbasak | Because it still is a valid wishlist item in Ubuntu, and reasonable to track it. | 21:59 |
| rbasak | Those subscribed to the bug find out when it gets made available in Ubuntu, etc. | 21:59 |
| ScottK | Since the Debian bug won't have the LP bug# in debian/changelog, it won't get changed unless someone changes it. | 22:00 |
| ScottK | Either way, the current status of the bug won't affect the terminal status after a sync. | 22:00 |
| ScottK | Two unrelated issues. | 22:00 |
| ScottK | Personally, I think it would be more honest to wontfix all the needs-packaging bugs. | 22:00 |
| rbasak | I think I have set Won't Fix on some bugs that I reasonably think will genuinely never get fixed, to be fair. | 22:01 |
| rbasak | Though I leave a comment explaining this. So | 22:01 |
| rbasak | then a potential contributor knows the status can be changed. | 22:01 |
| rbasak | Setting realistic expectations is important. | 22:02 |
| rbasak | Without a comment though, I still think Won't Fix implies we don't want it and will refuse it, which isn't true here. | 22:02 |
| ScottK | If I was reviewing the package, I'm not sure I'd accept it. | 22:03 |
| rbasak | In Debian? | 22:03 |
| ScottK | We really don't need more cruft from dead upstreams. | 22:03 |
| Logan_ | I constantly see packages being removed from Debian and Ubuntu due to a dead upstream | 22:03 |
| ScottK | Same. | 22:03 |
| Logan_ | we don't just package every tarball that's out there | 22:03 |
| Logan_ | I don't see why this should be an exception | 22:03 |
| ScottK | I'd certainly ask the maintainer how they planned to get upstream maintenance done. | 22:04 |
| rbasak | That's reasonable. | 22:04 |
| rbasak | Though consider any other bug. "Only if concerns X and Y are addressed" isn't a Won't Fix. It's just a requirement for acceptance. | 22:05 |
| ScottK | If the answer was along the lines of "I'm sure it'll be fine", I'd reject it. | 22:05 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!