UVF exception for ipython-0.7.0-2

[Reinhard Tartler]

Am Sonntag, den 22.01.2006, 16:07 +0100 schrieb Stephan Hermann:
> That I don't say. The patch was introduced during hoary, when doko pushed a 
> new upstream to ubuntu, which wasn't pushed to debian.

As I wrote in the previous mail, this patch WAS adopted by the debian
package. The problem is that this was NOT noticed during the merge.

> Well, there is a difference between, doing my job, and complaining about my 
> job. Fact is, he was looking the last couple of days to the package in ubuntu 
> and not during the last >6 months, because when he had a look earlier, he 
> would have seen the patch much earlier, and could talk to doko or during 
> breezy to me.

Sorry. You cannot treat him like this. He recently became co maintainer
to this package and noticed the botched ubuntu merge while packaging a
new upstream version. He was/is annoyed that we didn't noticed that this
patch was adopted by debian quite some time ago.

> Regarding the latest discussions on debian-devel, it's a matter of fact, that 
> right now, we will receive many annoying complains about some of our actions.
> I don't say, that we are always right, but nevertheless, it's a poor attitude 
> of people, to complain loud, but not saying that they only had a look now, 
> not earlier.
> 
> Sorry to say, there is something wrong.

Yes. Lets fix things then!

> Regarding my merge, at this time, I can't say anymore what was the cause of 
> not including the hoary changelog entries. But, the merge was done by me, and 
> it was working. So no harm towards Ubuntu. But it would be nice, if the 
> complaining party is complaining the right way. Not only regarding an 
> opponents mistake, no, the complaining party should also complain about their 
> mistakes, and that was, not to check at all during the last >6 months.

Maintainers do change in debian. Please, don't expect debian people to
play ubuntu rules when you don't play their rules. We want to work with
them. In this particular case, if the profiling patch would have been
properly documented somewhere, this whole thread would not exist. 

> This morning when I read Norberts entry on planet debian, I was thinking about 
> writing a blog entry as well. But I ignored my feelings, and I didn't feed 
> the trolls.

I think he is right. We should apologise.

-- 
Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20060122/3bc4dfbc/attachment-0001.pgp