Bug#568317: Processed: cloning 568317, reassign -1 to kernel-package
 

Dear Ben,

>>> I know the scripts suck but I am not in a position to rewrite them. ...
>>> I fixed this in the svn branch ...
>>
>> You seem to be contradicting yourself.
>
> Not at all. ... I have made a localised fix ... I have removed ...
> I would like to go much further ...

OK, you seem to make a subtle distinction between "fix" and "rewrite".

>>> I asked you to send patches for linux-2.6, and you refused.
>>
>> Huh? What do you base that accusation on? ...
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D568317#71
>> >>> ... saw your old patch and can do that later tomorrow.
>> >>> thanks for your input.
>> which I interpreted as "you" not needing further hand-holding after all.
>> Please explain how my interpretation was wrong; or please retract.
>
> You declined to send a patch for linux-2.6 after I pointed out that it
> is separate from kernel-package. Yes, Maks said he could use your k-p
> patch, but it would not have applied cleanly and would have required
> fixing up. Given that the kernel team is quite busy, and that you are
> clearly capable of debugging Perl and making patches, I don't think it
> was unreasonable of me to expect you to help us a bit further.

Please note: I never refused, never declined. Please retract.

Maybe I "failed to deliver", but only because I was wilfully misled into
thinking that such was not wanted. Will never again listen to Maks. :-)

>>> I fixed this in the svn branch for lenny and it should be in the next
>>> stable update.
>>
>> Thanks. Pity you did not let Bug#568317 (and thus the world) know.
>
> Normal practice is simply to tag a bug pending when the fix is
> committed, and that has been done (automatically).

Wow, I was not aware of that. But then... Bug#568823 had been "pending"
(I think is now "done"): does that mean that I can expect to see
kernel-package_12.033 in lenny, in the near future? (Surely not, surely
"commit" has meanings unrelated to "to be in next stable update".)

Cheers, Paul

Paul Szabo psz@maths.usyd.edu.au http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics University of Sydney Australia



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201002162324.o1GNOJSZ017213@bari.maths.usyd.edu.au ">http://lists.debian.org/201002162324.o1GNOJSZ017213@bari.maths.usyd.edu.au

Bug#568317: Processed: cloning 568317, reassign -1 to kernel-package
 

On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 10:24 +1100, paul.szabo@sydney.edu.au wrote:
[...]
> Please note: I never refused, never declined. Please retract.
>
> Maybe I "failed to deliver", but only because I was wilfully misled into
> thinking that such was not wanted. Will never again listen to Maks. :-)

Fair enough, I retract that.

> >>> I fixed this in the svn branch for lenny and it should be in the next
> >>> stable update.
> >>
> >> Thanks. Pity you did not let Bug#568317 (and thus the world) know.
> >
> > Normal practice is simply to tag a bug pending when the fix is
> > committed, and that has been done (automatically).
>
> Wow, I was not aware of that. But then... Bug#568823 had been "pending"
> (I think is now "done"): does that mean that I can expect to see
> kernel-package_12.033 in lenny, in the near future? (Surely not, surely
> "commit" has meanings unrelated to "to be in next stable update".)

This is true; 'pending' only tells you that the maintainer is preparing
to fix the bug in some new package version, but not which distributions
will be fixed.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert.