

Re: *UNAPPROVED* dpkg nmu

* Adam Heath 

Please respect my Mail-Followup-To, Mail-Copies-To and general Debian
list policy and don't Cc me.

| On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > The discussions I've tried to have with you on IRC on what would be a
| > good way to handle multi-arch and such has so far been fairly
| > resultless, and I am confident that if we had actually met face to
| > face, we would have been able to work something out in a couple of
| > hours.
| Where were you during the last discussion?  Matt Taggart, you, and I
| were all discussing, and we came up with a very viable solution.

The reason why we were able to come up with a solution was a bunch of
us had already done most of the discussion face to face.  The initial
proposal and the end result were very, very similar.

If you feel IRC and mailing lists to be fully adequate to work out how
to handle design choices, that's fine.  I don't.  If that means you
shall call decisions to meet in person to discuss having secret
meetings and backdooring the development process, I suggest you adjust
your tone a bit.  IRC has its place, so does mail, so does in-person
meetings.  Those complement each other quite nicely.

Also, quotes like:

05:46 < aj> i'm looking at mithrandir's proposal,
05:46 < doogie> aj: I hate that one.

doesn't lend to me understanding that we actually arrived at anything
you agreed on.

I could grab a bunch of other quotes where you don't seem to be too
happy about having other people helping out with dpkg:

00:49 < Mithrandir> DanielS: http://raw.no/debian/amd64-multiarch-2
00:49 < doogie> is that sucky too?
00:50 < Mithrandir> doogie: the multiarch proposal?  shouldn't be.
00:51 < doogie> Mithrandir: yes, it sucks.
00:51 < Mithrandir> doogie: oh, why?
00:51 < doogie> because you are saying what has to be done, without
      discussing with those who have to implement it.

(log cleaned up a bit)

Tollef Fog Heen                                                        ,''`.
                                                                      `. `' 

Reply to: