[arch-dev-public] Long out of date packages

Florian Pritz bluewind at xinu.at
Thu Aug 18 09:29:14 UTC 2016

On 17.08.2016 23:30, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> Is that really not enough?
> Enough for what? If you really wanna help me, you just talk to me and offer
> your help, but you don't send a rocket on the public list.

I'm not sure why you bring this up again here since I was under the
impression we cleared up the misunderstanding an hour before on IRC.

As discussed on IRC we were under the impression that you monitor IRC
traffic, but chose to ignore our requests for reasons unknown. I
especially believed that since you just stopped replying during a
discussion we had in May and you never picked up the discussion again. I
believe I have explained this sufficiently in the discussion that
happened in the hour prior to you sending this mail, but if you feel
that I should explain the reasoning again, please tell me.

>> > This kind of threat is inappropriate.
>> Lack of communication on your side is inappropriate. If there is a good
>> reason not to upgrade a package, put that information somewhere, instead
>> of letting it decay.
> I don't see much communication about why packages are not updated. Why are you
> asking me think others don't do? Why are you targeting me where is this so much
> package more out-of-date ?

As explained on IRC, I got asked by a user why ceph is not being
upgraded and I knew Bartłomiej tried to get in touch with you about ceph
before. When I asked him if he has heard anything from you, he denied.

Given my own history of unsuccessful communication with you (see my
first paragraphs), we looked into other ways of dealing with the problem
of neglected packages. We started with ceph since that was the reason
for thinking about this again.

Nothing of this has ever been intended to be a threat or targeted at you
specifically. This is really just a big misunderstanding as I tried to
explained on IRC and in the first paragraphs of this mail.

Also please understand that we did try to contact you via IRC and since
that didn't work we expected you not the care about the package any more
(again, see above). Since we don't take action without a mail first
Bartłomiej sent this mail. To my surprise you reacted, although not the
way I would have expected.

Granted, I could have probably sent you an email when you dropped out of
the discussion back in May, but I didn't expect you to simply vanish
from IRC, while keeping your bouncer online, without telling anyone.
Sorry about that.

Do you understand what happened here and why? If not, please tell me
what exactly you don't understand fully so I can explain it further.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 825 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20160818/6fce2fdf/attachment-0001.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list