[ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Zygmunt Krynicki-4
Hello everyone.

I wrote dh_splitpackage, a helper script that unambiguously splits the
files of a binary package into multiple packages based on a
configuration file.

The configuration file may point the primary package (the one that gets
leftover files by default) as well as any number of additional packages
with any number of inclusion and exclusion patterns.

The new script can be called instead of dh_install (assuming all the
files you are interested in are already in debian/tmp/) or afterwards.

The biggest advantage compared to existing tools is clear and
not-that-error-prone classification of files to packages. Any file that
would be classified to more than one package (hitting patterns in both
files) is clearly reported and prevents the package from building
properly. In addition running the script displays each file from
debian/tmp and the package it was classified to.

Using this script could greatly simplify many packages that currently
rely on numerous *.install files and custom dh_install overrides in
debian/rules.

You can find the code at lp:~zkrynicki/+junk/dh_splitpackage (tag:
release-0.1) The source tree also includes debian packaging that makes
use of the new script.


Best regards
Zygmunt Krynicki

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Evan Broder-3
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Zygmunt Krynicki
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello everyone.
>
> I wrote dh_splitpackage, a helper script that unambiguously splits the files
> of a binary package into multiple packages based on a configuration file.
>
> The configuration file may point the primary package (the one that gets
> leftover files by default) as well as any number of additional packages with
> any number of inclusion and exclusion patterns.
>
> The new script can be called instead of dh_install (assuming all the files
> you are interested in are already in debian/tmp/) or afterwards.
>
> The biggest advantage compared to existing tools is clear and
> not-that-error-prone classification of files to packages. Any file that
> would be classified to more than one package (hitting patterns in both
> files) is clearly reported and prevents the package from building properly.
> In addition running the script displays each file from debian/tmp and the
> package it was classified to.
>
> Using this script could greatly simplify many packages that currently rely
> on numerous *.install files and custom dh_install overrides in debian/rules.
>
> You can find the code at lp:~zkrynicki/+junk/dh_splitpackage (tag:
> release-0.1) The source tree also includes debian packaging that makes use
> of the new script.

Ubuntu has gotten quite a bit of flack from the debhelper maintainer
for making independent changes in the past ([1], [2]), and doing so
again seems like a bad plan.

dh_install already has a --fail-missing option. It seems that this
would cover half of your use case, though I gather there are some
outstanding issues with it ([3]). CDBS also has a list-missing target,
though it doesn't seem that it can be made to fail the build, and also
doesn't cover your overlapping files issue.

It seems like it would be much more productive to work with Joey to
try and fix dh_install --fail-missing, and possibly add a new
--fail-on-overlap option or something. But in any case, I think that
adding a new debhelper script without consulting Joey at all will hurt
Ubuntu's image in Debian's eyes, and that's a bad thing.

- Evan

[1] http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/on_forking_debhelper/
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=369755
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=453693

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Zygmunt Krynicki-5
W dniu 03.06.2011 21:17, Evan Broder pisze:

> Ubuntu has gotten quite a bit of flack from the debhelper maintainer
> for making independent changes in the past ([1], [2]), and doing so
> again seems like a bad plan.

Perhaps posting this from my @canonical.com address was a bad idea. I'm
not doing this as a Canonical employee, nor as a ubuntu developer. I'm
doing this as an upstream (actually working on Linaro tools) that uses
Debian/Ubuntu as the delivery platform.

My response below may seem to be quite harsh but I hope to keep it factual.

For context. I wrote dh_splitpackage yesterday after being upset with
dh_install and failing to find any packages that would do what I wanted
easily. I did it while packaging the tools I'm developing daily so that
my users can install them easily. Nothing in this has any relation to my
employer, Canonical, Ubuntu or Linaro. I made this and the fault, if
any, is mine.

> dh_install already has a --fail-missing option. It seems that this
> would cover half of your use case,

To the best of my knowledge dh_install cannot do what I wish. Well, I
could copy file by file, directory by directory, carefully observing the
right paths, adding exclusion patterns and so on.

That's not my goal.

My goal is to split a package (which I understand as "move each file
from debian/tmp into the appropriate sub-package") easily, without too
much, error-prone, shell scripting and without doubts I missed something
and it's actually failing silently (or will fail silently when upstream
files move around later).

> though I gather there are some
> outstanding issues with it ([3]). CDBS also has a list-missing target,
> though it doesn't seem that it can be made to fail the build, and also
> doesn't cover your overlapping files issue.

See, that's not solving my problem.

> It seems like it would be much more productive to work with Joey to
> try and fix dh_install --fail-missing, and possibly add a new
> --fail-on-overlap option or something.

Productive for who? I never even knew Joey (no disrespect to him). I
solved my problem and shared the solution. My problem is solved. Better
yet, I did not make the general problem worse.

Look at this as a contribution to possible pool of solutions that the
greater Debian community may choose to adopt.

> But in any case, I think that
> adding a new debhelper script without consulting Joey at all will hurt
> Ubuntu's image in Debian's eyes, and that's a bad thing.

I'm sorry I did not know Joey. Perhaps if I was working on packaging
lots of 3rd party software I would get know him eventually. Should that
prevent me (or anyone) from coming up with a good technical solution to
a problem? Even if dh_splitpackage will rot in the internet archive it
_did_ solve my problem and I _did_ share the solution hoping for the best.

Now for some rants of my own:

Let's play a game that I did knew Joey or other dh_* maintainers.
IMHO engaging in platform development would be pointless. It might end
up being political. It would most likely drag on and on, possibly never
reaching a consensus. It might require me to rewrite the script in perl,
shell or another language. And it could easily fail.

Why would  I engage in any of that? Why would any upstream do? (and see
how friendly upstream I am to even share my solution with anyone, do you
think random upstream developer would?). Debian is an insanely complex
political being, with many rules that are fully versed only by people
that dwell in this environment for many years. That's not a good ISV
environment. Perhaps this is not a popular view but IMHO it's rather
true (why would I be writing this email otherwise?)

Getting involved in fixing the platform the way Debian maintainers and
many of my colleagues at Canonical do would be diverging from my goals.
I'm an upstream working on a project. This project is not Debian.
Getting involved with Debian, dh_* maintainers, authors and
contributors, while noble, would prevent me from attaining my goal on a
predictable and timely basis, which is to get the software I'm working
on into the hands of my users.

End of rant.

Now I understand that you had no bad intentions towards me and this is
all caused by me posting from @canonical.com without giving any kind of
explanation on why I did this.

Sincerely
Zygmunt Krynicki

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Scott Kitterman-3
On Friday, June 03, 2011 06:55:23 PM Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
> W dniu 03.06.2011 21:17, Evan Broder pisze:
> > Ubuntu has gotten quite a bit of flack from the debhelper maintainer
> > for making independent changes in the past ([1], [2]), and doing so
> > again seems like a bad plan.
>
> Perhaps posting this from my @canonical.com address was a bad idea. I'm
> not doing this as a Canonical employee, nor as a ubuntu developer. I'm
> doing this as an upstream (actually working on Linaro tools) that uses
> Debian/Ubuntu as the delivery platform.

I thought Evan's answer was quite appropriate for a message written to ubuntu-
devel and I didn't notice you wrote from a Canonical email address.  I
seriously doubt that it had anything to do with it.  My response isn't changed
any by the fact that you wrote from a Linaro address this time.

> My response below may seem to be quite harsh but I hope to keep it factual.
>
> For context. I wrote dh_splitpackage yesterday after being upset with
> dh_install and failing to find any packages that would do what I wanted
> easily. I did it while packaging the tools I'm developing daily so that
> my users can install them easily. Nothing in this has any relation to my
> employer, Canonical, Ubuntu or Linaro. I made this and the fault, if
> any, is mine.

I fail to find any evidence in Evan's reply that he thought otherwise.  I find
it quite odd that you are so certain of it.  It may not be clear to you, but
Ubuntu and Canonical are not at all the same thing.  

> > dh_install already has a --fail-missing option. It seems that this
> > would cover half of your use case,
>
> To the best of my knowledge dh_install cannot do what I wish. Well, I
> could copy file by file, directory by directory, carefully observing the
> right paths, adding exclusion patterns and so on.
>
> That's not my goal.
>
> My goal is to split a package (which I understand as "move each file
> from debian/tmp into the appropriate sub-package") easily, without too
> much, error-prone, shell scripting and without doubts I missed something
> and it's actually failing silently (or will fail silently when upstream
> files move around later).

Evan didn't say it would.  He said he thought --fail-missing would cover part
of your use case.  Your response confirms that he was correct.

> > though I gather there are some
> > outstanding issues with it ([3]). CDBS also has a list-missing target,
> > though it doesn't seem that it can be made to fail the build, and also
> > doesn't cover your overlapping files issue.
>
> See, that's not solving my problem.
>
> > It seems like it would be much more productive to work with Joey to
> > try and fix dh_install --fail-missing, and possibly add a new
> > --fail-on-overlap option or something.
>
> Productive for who? I never even knew Joey (no disrespect to him). I
> solved my problem and shared the solution. My problem is solved. Better
> yet, I did not make the general problem worse.
>
> Look at this as a contribution to possible pool of solutions that the
> greater Debian community may choose to adopt.

My impression is that for that to be possible it probably needs a different
author.  You don't appear to have any interest in collaboration to improve
things for the greater benefit.  I see you've had some involvement in Ubuntu
for some time and are an Ubuntu Member, so I think you should know you are not
working with people the way we try to do in Ubuntu.  When I read your initial
message I thought it sounded interesting.  I'm not interested anymore.

My response below may seem to be quite harsh but those are the facts as I see
them.

> > But in any case, I think that
> > adding a new debhelper script without consulting Joey at all will hurt
> > Ubuntu's image in Debian's eyes, and that's a bad thing.
>
> I'm sorry I did not know Joey. Perhaps if I was working on packaging
> lots of 3rd party software I would get know him eventually. Should that
> prevent me (or anyone) from coming up with a good technical solution to
> a problem? Even if dh_splitpackage will rot in the internet archive it
> _did_ solve my problem and I _did_ share the solution hoping for the best.
>
> Now for some rants of my own:
>
> Let's play a game that I did knew Joey or other dh_* maintainers.
> IMHO engaging in platform development would be pointless. It might end
> up being political. It would most likely drag on and on, possibly never
> reaching a consensus. It might require me to rewrite the script in perl,
> shell or another language. And it could easily fail.
>
> Why would  I engage in any of that? Why would any upstream do? (and see
> how friendly upstream I am to even share my solution with anyone, do you
> think random upstream developer would?). Debian is an insanely complex
> political being, with many rules that are fully versed only by people
> that dwell in this environment for many years. That's not a good ISV
> environment. Perhaps this is not a popular view but IMHO it's rather
> true (why would I be writing this email otherwise?)
>
> Getting involved in fixing the platform the way Debian maintainers and
> many of my colleagues at Canonical do would be diverging from my goals.
> I'm an upstream working on a project. This project is not Debian.
> Getting involved with Debian, dh_* maintainers, authors and
> contributors, while noble, would prevent me from attaining my goal on a
> predictable and timely basis, which is to get the software I'm working
> on into the hands of my users.
>
> End of rant.

Your project (Linaro) is downstream of both Ubuntu and Debian, so trying to
contribute your work upstream is a good thing.  If you aren't interested in
collaboration, I don't understand why you bothered to write ubuntu-devel.  
Lots of people contribute to Ubuntu that don't have Ubuntu development as
their primary focus.  The same is true with Debian.

Yes, attempting to collaborate is not guaranteed to succeed, but that doesn't
mean the attempt isn't worthwhile.

> Now I understand that you had no bad intentions towards me and this is
> all caused by me posting from @canonical.com without giving any kind of
> explanation on why I did this.

No.  It's completely unrelated to the email address you posted from.  It was
caused by an Ubuntu developer trying to give you helpful advice on how to get
your work included in Ubuntu (because that's what it looked like you were
trying to accomplish).  Fortunately your response to his helpful suggestion
has reduced the risk you'll ever be inconvenineced by such responses again.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Zygmunt Krynicki-4
W dniu 04.06.2011 05:00, Scott Kitterman pisze:

>> For context. I wrote dh_splitpackage yesterday after being upset with
>> dh_install and failing to find any packages that would do what I wanted
>> easily. I did it while packaging the tools I'm developing daily so that
>> my users can install them easily. Nothing in this has any relation to my
>> employer, Canonical, Ubuntu or Linaro. I made this and the fault, if
>> any, is mine.
>
> I fail to find any evidence in Evan's reply that he thought otherwise.  I find
> it quite odd that you are so certain of it.  It may not be clear to you, but
> Ubuntu and Canonical are not at all the same thing.

I wanted to make clear that my announcement or Evan's negative reaction
should not be associated with any of those parties as that was not my
intent.

>> Productive for who? I never even knew Joey (no disrespect to him). I
>> solved my problem and shared the solution. My problem is solved. Better
>> yet, I did not make the general problem worse.
>>
>> Look at this as a contribution to possible pool of solutions that the
>> greater Debian community may choose to adopt.
>
> My impression is that for that to be possible it probably needs a different
> author.

If something like dh_splitpackage makes it way into debhelper by the
time next LTS is released I would be very happy use it.

> You don't appear to have any interest in collaboration to improve
> things for the greater benefit.  I see you've had some involvement in Ubuntu
> for some time and are an Ubuntu Member, so I think you should know you are not
> working with people the way we try to do in Ubuntu.  When I read your initial
> message I thought it sounded interesting.

Digging through dh_install bugs, talking to maintainers, backporting
(fixed) debhelper to lucid (Linaro requirement) would all be much better
for the platform. It is just the case that currently I cannot invest the
time required to do so.

I am interested in collaboration. I express my collaboration by
documenting, testing, releasing and announcing a script that works,
IMHO, much better at this particular problem than existing solutions.

 > I'm not interested anymore.

Why? Has anything technical changed since?

> Your project (Linaro) is downstream of both Ubuntu and Debian, so trying to
> contribute your work upstream is a good thing.  If you aren't interested in
> collaboration, I don't understand why you bothered to write ubuntu-devel.
> Lots of people contribute to Ubuntu that don't have Ubuntu development as
> their primary focus.  The same is true with Debian.

Linaro is both upstream and new-software. There is a mixture of upstream
and downstream connections between Linaro and Debian+Ubuntu. In my work
I work solely as an upstream and I package the results for easier
eventual inclusion downstream and for immediate benefit to current users.

> No.  It's completely unrelated to the email address you posted from.  It was
> caused by an Ubuntu developer trying to give you helpful advice on how to get
> your work included in Ubuntu (because that's what it looked like you were
> trying to accomplish).

I just wanted to announce my script, that's all. Posting to ubuntu-devel
seemed like a good place for people to notice and comment.

Best regards
Zygmunt Krynicki

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Mackenzie Morgan-3
On Saturday, June 04, 2011 4:58:14 AM Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:

> W dniu 04.06.2011 05:00, Scott Kitterman pisze:
> > You don't appear to have any interest in collaboration to improve
> > things for the greater benefit.  I see you've had some involvement in
> > Ubuntu for some time and are an Ubuntu Member, so I think you should
> > know you are not working with people the way we try to do in Ubuntu.
> > When I read your initial message I thought it sounded interesting.
>
> Digging through dh_install bugs, talking to maintainers, backporting
> (fixed) debhelper to lucid (Linaro requirement) would all be much better
> for the platform. It is just the case that currently I cannot invest the
> time required to do so.
>
> I am interested in collaboration. I express my collaboration by
> documenting, testing, releasing and announcing a script that works,
> IMHO, much better at this particular problem than existing solutions.

I think your definition and Scott's definition of collaboration may differ.  It
certainly differs with mine. Usually it involves working with other people, so
seeing if there's a halfway-there tool you could extend (and talking to those
involved both in its creation and use beforehand), rather than being a lone
hacker, would fit my definition better.

--
Mackenzie Morgan
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com
apt-get moo

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Zygmunt Krynicki-4
W dniu 04.06.2011 17:17, Mackenzie Morgan pisze:

>> I am interested in collaboration. I express my collaboration by
>> documenting, testing, releasing and announcing a script that works,
>> IMHO, much better at this particular problem than existing solutions.
>
> I think your definition and Scott's definition of collaboration may differ.  It
> certainly differs with mine. Usually it involves working with other people, so
> seeing if there's a halfway-there tool you could extend (and talking to those
> involved both in its creation and use beforehand), rather than being a lone
> hacker, would fit my definition better.

This discussion is also collaboration. Despite me being upset with the
negative reaction early on I did gain a lot from it.

Extending existing tools is much harder than writing a new tool from
scratch. We should not be forced into a situation where a new good tool
is discarded because of this.

Taking into account the existing user base of dh_install, extending the
tool in a backwards compatible way could end up with worse situation
than just writing something new for this sole purpose. Also dh_install
is a much more generic tool, adding even more functionality would just
make it even less obvious and hard to use for this task.

I think that contacting debhelper maintainer is a good thing to do now.
My original problem is solved and I can engage in a conversation without
delaying my daily work.

Best regards
Zygmunt Krynicki

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Daniel Holbach-2
In reply to this post by Scott Kitterman-3
Hello everybody,

Am 04.06.2011 05:00, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> I fail to find any evidence in Evan's reply that he thought otherwise.  I find
> it quite odd that you are so certain of it.  It may not be clear to you, but
> Ubuntu and Canonical are not at all the same thing.  

AFAIK Zygmunt contributed to Ubuntu since 2005 and was only hired into
Canonical some time last year. I'm quite sure he's well aware what
Canonical is and what Ubuntu is.


> My impression is that for that to be possible it probably needs a different
> author.  You don't appear to have any interest in collaboration to improve
> things for the greater benefit.  I see you've had some involvement in Ubuntu
> for some time and are an Ubuntu Member, so I think you should know you are not
> working with people the way we try to do in Ubuntu.  When I read your initial
> message I thought it sounded interesting.  I'm not interested anymore.

The message this sends out is "if you don't go the whole nine yards,
you're not with us", which I don't agree with.

In a lot of cases in the open source world somebody proposed a solution
to part of a bigger problem and even if they chose not to completely
generalise it, upstream it, etc., it helped others to pave the way for a
more general solution. It would be great if all proposed changes in the
world landed upstream first and in a general way, but I don't think it's
a fair a priori expectation.

This exchange does not only alienate Zygmunt, but also future
contributors who happen to read this. Everybody is entitled to be of the
opinion that solutions are worthless if they don't generally fix all the
related bugs, but you don't speak for me.

Ubuntu is different because we invite people to share their ideas and we
welcome people in. Dismissing a helpful developer is unproductive and
more importantly actively damaging to the project.

Ironically enough it proves a point in Zygmunt's earlier message about
how hard it is to contribute to Debian/Ubuntu and this perception will stay.


> Fortunately your response to his helpful suggestion
> has reduced the risk you'll ever be inconvenineced by such responses again.

6 emails into the thread, what have we achieved?

Positive:
 + a script shared that solves a specific problem,
 + some background on what would be necessary to fix the problem more
   generally and some info about what might be debhelper upstream's
   expectations.

Negative:
 - some confusion about email addresses,
 - a lasting impression that contributing to Debian and Ubuntu is hard
   and you might get flamed if you share your work but might be too
   busy to fully generalise it, etc etc.


Can we please go back to square 1 and can those who are interested in
the problems that are solved (or partly solved) by Zygmunt have a
conversation that is goal-oriented instead? I'm sure Zygmunt is happy to
answer questions about how his code works and which considerations
exactly led to it.

Thanks. Have a great day,
 Daniel

--
Get involved with Ubuntu Development: http://identi.ca/ubuntudev
http://twitter.com/ubuntudev http://facebook.com/ubuntudev

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Scott Kitterman-3
On Saturday, June 04, 2011 12:36:08 PM Daniel Holbach wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> Am 04.06.2011 05:00, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > I fail to find any evidence in Evan's reply that he thought otherwise.  I
> > find it quite odd that you are so certain of it.  It may not be clear to
> > you, but Ubuntu and Canonical are not at all the same thing.
>
> AFAIK Zygmunt contributed to Ubuntu since 2005 and was only hired into
> Canonical some time last year. I'm quite sure he's well aware what
> Canonical is and what Ubuntu is.

I'm quite encouraged by Zygmunt's latest reply in the thread.  It's more like
the reply I would have hoped came in response to Evan's mail.

> > My impression is that for that to be possible it probably needs a
> > different author.  You don't appear to have any interest in
> > collaboration to improve things for the greater benefit.  I see you've
> > had some involvement in Ubuntu for some time and are an Ubuntu Member,
> > so I think you should know you are not working with people the way we
> > try to do in Ubuntu.  When I read your initial message I thought it
> > sounded interesting.  I'm not interested anymore.
>
> The message this sends out is "if you don't go the whole nine yards,
> you're not with us", which I don't agree with.

I disagree.  

> In a lot of cases in the open source world somebody proposed a solution
> to part of a bigger problem and even if they chose not to completely
> generalise it, upstream it, etc., it helped others to pave the way for a
> more general solution. It would be great if all proposed changes in the
> world landed upstream first and in a general way, but I don't think it's
> a fair a priori expectation.

I think you are putting words in my mouth now.

> This exchange does not only alienate Zygmunt, but also future
> contributors who happen to read this. Everybody is entitled to be of the
> opinion that solutions are worthless if they don't generally fix all the
> related bugs, but you don't speak for me.

That isn't what I said at all.  Personally I find this kind of response to
attack someone who's calling someone on unacceptable behavior demotivating.

> Ubuntu is different because we invite people to share their ideas and we
> welcome people in. Dismissing a helpful developer is unproductive and
> more importantly actively damaging to the project.

I'm not sure who the helpful developer you're referring to is?  Blasting
someone who offers suggestions about how best to get one's work incorporated
into Ubuntu is not, IMO, helpful.  I see in another part of this thread that
Zygmunt is going to work with the Debhelper upstream to see if this can be
incorporated.  I think that's very good news.

> Ironically enough it proves a point in Zygmunt's earlier message about
> how hard it is to contribute to Debian/Ubuntu and this perception will
> stay.

I disagree.  I think that sitting idly by while people are hostile and
negative makes the environment more difficult for everyone.  Instead of a long
rant attacking Ubuntu and Debian, Zygmunt could have just said he wasn't
interested in doing that work, but he didn't.  He went on the attack and I
think it's unreasonable for you to attack me for calling him on it.

> > Fortunately your response to his helpful suggestion
> > has reduced the risk you'll ever be inconvenineced by such responses
> > again.
>
> 6 emails into the thread, what have we achieved?
>
> Positive:
>  + a script shared that solves a specific problem,
>  + some background on what would be necessary to fix the problem more
>    generally and some info about what might be debhelper upstream's
>    expectations.
    + The script author expressing a willingness to work with Debhelper on
       this
>
> Negative:
>  - some confusion about email addresses,
>  - a lasting impression that contributing to Debian and Ubuntu is hard
>    and you might get flamed if you share your work but might be too
>    busy to fully generalise it, etc etc.
   - Ubuntu developers getting flamed for upholding project values
   - At least one Ubuntu developer feeling like the Canonical community team
     is more committed to Canonical employees than Ubuntu.
>
> Can we please go back to square 1 and can those who are interested in
> the problems that are solved (or partly solved) by Zygmunt have a
> conversation that is goal-oriented instead? I'm sure Zygmunt is happy to
> answer questions about how his code works and which considerations
> exactly led to it.

I'm happy to take a step back and consider a better path forward.  I think
Zygmunt's reply to maco is very encouraging.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Daniel Holbach-2
Hello,

first of all let me say that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

Am 04.06.2011 20:20, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> I'm quite encouraged by Zygmunt's latest reply in the thread.  It's more like
> the reply I would have hoped came in response to Evan's mail.

In an ideal world every single contribution would go upstream first, be
general and solve a lot of problems. Failing that, after some
conversation, the patch author and others would agree on a good way to
get the general solution into place. I agree with all of that.

I just don't feel the way this whole conversation went was the best way
to get there. There was somebody who put a lot of work into solving a
problem and shared the solution. Where we might disagree is if it's a
reasonable to expect the initial patch author to put even more work into
it. It would be great if it happened that way, but it will cause
frustration if that expectation isn't met.

If we want that person to put even more work into the solution, I feel
the discussion needs to take a different route. Admittedly there was
some confusion about email addresses which didn't help, but still I felt
that in this particular case Zygmunt was dismissed in much too rough a way.


>> In a lot of cases in the open source world somebody proposed a solution
>> to part of a bigger problem and even if they chose not to completely
>> generalise it, upstream it, etc., it helped others to pave the way for a
>> more general solution. It would be great if all proposed changes in the
>> world landed upstream first and in a general way, but I don't think it's
>> a fair a priori expectation.
>
> I think you are putting words in my mouth now.

The only way I could read
  "You don't appear to have any interest in collaboration to improve
   things for the greater benefit."
was as surprisingly general and as a dismissal. In addition to that
  "Fortunately your response to his helpful suggestion has reduced the
   risk you'll ever be inconvenineced by such responses again."
to me came across as quite cynical and indicating that if Zygmunt was
not willing to generalise his solution, it'd be pointless and he'd be
better off not contributing it at all. Certainly it's not welcoming the
contribution.

If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. I don't want to dwell on the question
of particular words for too long as it does not help moving this
particular issue forward, but a different tack would have been:

 - Discussing with Zygmunt what particularly could be generalised most
   easily and asking for his help if possible.
 - Asking if he'd mind if Upstream (and others) would be copied in the
   conversation or if the tool could be submitted for a code/concept
   review.
 - Interpreting the tool as a proof-of-concept which could be
   generalised later on.

The reason why I'm imagining a softer approach to drive the discussion
is that I have sympathy for somebody who just solved their own problem
and shared the idea, but might be too busy / to much out-of-the-loop to
figure out next steps or actually implement it.

This feels a bit like sponsoring, where somebody sent a patch that
solves their problem, but not the complete surrounding problem and it's
not submitted upstream first. The question is: do we accept the work and
gently help moving things forward or do we expect the contributor to go
all the way and ignore the solution until then.


>> This exchange does not only alienate Zygmunt, but also future
>> contributors who happen to read this. Everybody is entitled to be of the
>> opinion that solutions are worthless if they don't generally fix all the
>> related bugs, but you don't speak for me.
>
> That isn't what I said at all.  Personally I find this kind of response to
> attack someone who's calling someone on unacceptable behavior demotivating.

What exactly was unacceptable? Could you imagine that Zygmunt was
demotivated as well?


>> Ubuntu is different because we invite people to share their ideas and we
>> welcome people in. Dismissing a helpful developer is unproductive and
>> more importantly actively damaging to the project.
>
> I'm not sure who the helpful developer you're referring to is?  Blasting
> someone who offers suggestions about how best to get one's work incorporated
> into Ubuntu is not, IMO, helpful.  

I'm not sure Zygmunt's intent was to get dh_splitpackage into Ubuntu. At
least it's not mentioned in the initial email. The way I read the mail
is "Hey, I solved a problem I ran into, check it out if you're interested."


> I see in another part of this thread that
> Zygmunt is going to work with the Debhelper upstream to see if this can be
> incorporated.  I think that's very good news.

I agree that it's good news, the question is if this was the most
pain-free way to "get there".


> I think that sitting idly by while people are hostile and
> negative makes the environment more difficult for everyone.  

I totally agree with this and I did feel the need to step in.


> Instead of a long
> rant attacking Ubuntu and Debian, Zygmunt could have just said he wasn't
> interested in doing that work, but he didn't.  He went on the attack and I
> think it's unreasonable for you to attack me for calling him on it.

There certainly was frustration in that mail, but it also contained
valuable feedback about how it feels contributing something to
Ubuntu/Debian for somebody who is not participating in Ubuntu
development every single day.

I think it's absolutely possible to point out that the tone of an email
is not OK, the critical difference between our two perceptions is in
"rant of a frustrated contributor" vs. "attack of our projects".


>> Negative:
>>  - some confusion about email addresses,
>>  - a lasting impression that contributing to Debian and Ubuntu is hard
>>    and you might get flamed if you share your work but might be too
>>    busy to fully generalise it, etc etc.
>    - Ubuntu developers getting flamed for upholding project values

It seems we both clashed in trying to do the same.


>    - At least one Ubuntu developer feeling like the Canonical community team
>      is more committed to Canonical employees than Ubuntu.

Jono, Jorge, David and Ahmed were not part of this debate.

It's an idle side-path of the discussion, but I don't want anybody
treated on this mailing list like Zygmunt was treated, Canonical
employee or not.


>> Can we please go back to square 1 and can those who are interested in
>> the problems that are solved (or partly solved) by Zygmunt have a
>> conversation that is goal-oriented instead? I'm sure Zygmunt is happy to
>> answer questions about how his code works and which considerations
>> exactly led to it.
>
> I'm happy to take a step back and consider a better path forward.  I think
> Zygmunt's reply to maco is very encouraging.

I agree that things it's great we have paths of communication
established now. I just feel that we could have got there in a much
calmer way than we did.

Again, if I misread any of the previous conversation and misinterpreted
it, then I'm sorry. There was other confusion part of this debate as
well, which probably also didn't help.

Have a great day,
 Daniel

--
Get involved with Ubuntu Development: http://identi.ca/ubuntudev
http://twitter.com/ubuntudev http://facebook.com/ubuntudev

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Scott Kitterman-3
On Saturday, June 04, 2011 03:20:55 PM Daniel Holbach wrote:

> Hello,
>
> first of all let me say that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.
>
> Am 04.06.2011 20:20, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > I'm quite encouraged by Zygmunt's latest reply in the thread.  It's more
> > like the reply I would have hoped came in response to Evan's mail.
>
> In an ideal world every single contribution would go upstream first, be
> general and solve a lot of problems. Failing that, after some
> conversation, the patch author and others would agree on a good way to
> get the general solution into place. I agree with all of that.
>
> I just don't feel the way this whole conversation went was the best way
> to get there. There was somebody who put a lot of work into solving a
> problem and shared the solution. Where we might disagree is if it's a
> reasonable to expect the initial patch author to put even more work into
> it. It would be great if it happened that way, but it will cause
> frustration if that expectation isn't met.
>
> If we want that person to put even more work into the solution, I feel
> the discussion needs to take a different route. Admittedly there was
> some confusion about email addresses which didn't help, but still I felt
> that in this particular case Zygmunt was dismissed in much too rough a way.

As I said, if he'd just said he wasn't interested in upstreaming, I'd have
been fine with that.  I think the rant was unnecessary and very inappropriate.  
I also think it was inaccurate, but we can move on.  I disagree that my
response was inappropriate.  

Some people seem to think that the CoC requires us to avoid conflict, but I
think the opposite is true.  I think it requires us to engage and work to get
conflicts resolved.  I can understand that my response may have seemed harsh,
but it was nothing more than an honest reflection of my reaction.

> >> In a lot of cases in the open source world somebody proposed a solution
> >> to part of a bigger problem and even if they chose not to completely
> >> generalise it, upstream it, etc., it helped others to pave the way for a
> >> more general solution. It would be great if all proposed changes in the
> >> world landed upstream first and in a general way, but I don't think it's
> >> a fair a priori expectation.
> >
> > I think you are putting words in my mouth now.
>
> The only way I could read
>   "You don't appear to have any interest in collaboration to improve
>    things for the greater benefit."
> was as surprisingly general and as a dismissal. In addition to that
>   "Fortunately your response to his helpful suggestion has reduced the
>    risk you'll ever be inconvenineced by such responses again."
> to me came across as quite cynical and indicating that if Zygmunt was
> not willing to generalise his solution, it'd be pointless and he'd be
> better off not contributing it at all. Certainly it's not welcoming the
> contribution.
>
> If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. I don't want to dwell on the question
> of particular words for too long as it does not help moving this
> particular issue forward, but a different tack would have been:
>
>  - Discussing with Zygmunt what particularly could be generalised most
>    easily and asking for his help if possible.
>  - Asking if he'd mind if Upstream (and others) would be copied in the
>    conversation or if the tool could be submitted for a code/concept
>    review.
>  - Interpreting the tool as a proof-of-concept which could be
>    generalised later on.
>
> The reason why I'm imagining a softer approach to drive the discussion
> is that I have sympathy for somebody who just solved their own problem
> and shared the idea, but might be too busy / to much out-of-the-loop to
> figure out next steps or actually implement it.
>
> This feels a bit like sponsoring, where somebody sent a patch that
> solves their problem, but not the complete surrounding problem and it's
> not submitted upstream first. The question is: do we accept the work and
> gently help moving things forward or do we expect the contributor to go
> all the way and ignore the solution until then.

I agree there are similarities, but I find the situation more like after a
potential sponsor reviews a patch and suggests upstreaming would be the best
approach they are called idiots for suggesting it.  I think that would be
inappropriate in that context just as the flaming response to Evan's
suggestions were inappropriate.

> >> This exchange does not only alienate Zygmunt, but also future
> >> contributors who happen to read this. Everybody is entitled to be of the
> >> opinion that solutions are worthless if they don't generally fix all the
> >> related bugs, but you don't speak for me.
> >
> > That isn't what I said at all.  Personally I find this kind of response
> > to attack someone who's calling someone on unacceptable behavior
> > demotivating.
>
> What exactly was unacceptable? Could you imagine that Zygmunt was
> demotivated as well?

I think flaming people who are trying to help you is unacceptable.  It wouldn't
suprise me if it were, but if people are not willing to work collaboratively
as part of the community, I'm not overly concerned about it (Note: I'm not
saying that's still the case in this situation, but it certainly appeared that
way at the time).

> >> Ubuntu is different because we invite people to share their ideas and we
> >> welcome people in. Dismissing a helpful developer is unproductive and
> >> more importantly actively damaging to the project.
> >
> > I'm not sure who the helpful developer you're referring to is?  Blasting
> > someone who offers suggestions about how best to get one's work
> > incorporated into Ubuntu is not, IMO, helpful.
>
> I'm not sure Zygmunt's intent was to get dh_splitpackage into Ubuntu. At
> least it's not mentioned in the initial email. The way I read the mail
> is "Hey, I solved a problem I ran into, check it out if you're interested."

In that case a simple "That's great, but I'm not interested in trying to get
it into Ubuntu" would have been sufficient.

> > I see in another part of this thread that
> > Zygmunt is going to work with the Debhelper upstream to see if this can
> > be incorporated.  I think that's very good news.
>
> I agree that it's good news, the question is if this was the most
> pain-free way to "get there".
>
I agree it's quite unfortunate that Evan's initial helpful suggestions weren't
better received.  If they had been, a lot of pain would have been avoided.

> > I think that sitting idly by while people are hostile and
> > negative makes the environment more difficult for everyone.
>
> I totally agree with this and I did feel the need to step in.

It's unfortunate (IMO) that you decided to step in and defend such behavior.

> > Instead of a long
> > rant attacking Ubuntu and Debian, Zygmunt could have just said he wasn't
> > interested in doing that work, but he didn't.  He went on the attack and
> > I think it's unreasonable for you to attack me for calling him on it.
>
> There certainly was frustration in that mail, but it also contained
> valuable feedback about how it feels contributing something to
> Ubuntu/Debian for somebody who is not participating in Ubuntu
> development every single day.
>
> I think it's absolutely possible to point out that the tone of an email
> is not OK, the critical difference between our two perceptions is in
> "rant of a frustrated contributor" vs. "attack of our projects".

Perhaps rant of a frustrated non-contributor.  Most of the "Oh, I'd have to
..." in the response was completely inaccurate.  If the response had been
further questions about what would be required to work on integrating it with
debhelper, then it would have been completely appropriate (even with some
mention of being worried about the level of effort required).

> >> Negative:
> >>  - some confusion about email addresses,
> >>  - a lasting impression that contributing to Debian and Ubuntu is hard
> >>    and you might get flamed if you share your work but might be too
> >>    busy to fully generalise it, etc etc.
> >    - Ubuntu developers getting flamed for upholding project values
>
> It seems we both clashed in trying to do the same.
>
> >    - At least one Ubuntu developer feeling like the Canonical community
> >    team
> >    
> >      is more committed to Canonical employees than Ubuntu.
>
> Jono, Jorge, David and Ahmed were not part of this debate.
>
> It's an idle side-path of the discussion, but I don't want anybody
> treated on this mailing list like Zygmunt was treated, Canonical
> employee or not.

I don't sense any concern until it was a Canonical person being told they were
behaving inappropriately.  AIUI you are the person on the community team
tasked with working with Ubuntu developers, so what I have to go on is your
reaction to this.  I think the reply that Evan got was completely
inappropriate and unfair.  He was just trying to be helpful.  When I see some
concern over this, then I'll be glad to reconsider.

> >> Can we please go back to square 1 and can those who are interested in
> >> the problems that are solved (or partly solved) by Zygmunt have a
> >> conversation that is goal-oriented instead? I'm sure Zygmunt is happy to
> >> answer questions about how his code works and which considerations
> >> exactly led to it.
> >
> > I'm happy to take a step back and consider a better path forward.  I
> > think Zygmunt's reply to maco is very encouraging.
>
> I agree that things it's great we have paths of communication
> established now. I just feel that we could have got there in a much
> calmer way than we did.
>
> Again, if I misread any of the previous conversation and misinterpreted
> it, then I'm sorry. There was other confusion part of this debate as
> well, which probably also didn't help.

I agree this is a side discussion that's not relevant to the main point.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1

Daniel Holbach-2
Hello,

Am 04.06.2011 22:05, schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> Some people seem to think that the CoC requires us to avoid conflict, but I
> think the opposite is true.  I think it requires us to engage and work to get
> conflicts resolved.  I can understand that my response may have seemed harsh,
> but it was nothing more than an honest reflection of my reaction.

I agree with you that avoiding conflict is not a goal of the CoC, it
just reminds us of doing it in a civil, engaging and goal-oriented way.
I can't remember who paraphrased the CoC in five words, but it was "be
excellent with each other" which is very far away from "never disagree". :)


> I agree there are similarities, but I find the situation more like after a
> potential sponsor reviews a patch and suggests upstreaming would be the best
> approach they are called idiots for suggesting it.  I think that would be
> inappropriate in that context just as the flaming response to Evan's
> suggestions were inappropriate.

"You're idiots" is not how I understood the mail, but I guess that's
sufficiently clear by now.


>> What exactly was unacceptable? Could you imagine that Zygmunt was
>> demotivated as well?
>
> I think flaming people who are trying to help you is unacceptable.  It wouldn't
> suprise me if it were, but if people are not willing to work collaboratively
> as part of the community, I'm not overly concerned about it (Note: I'm not
> saying that's still the case in this situation, but it certainly appeared that
> way at the time).

Who exactly do you feel was flamed? Zygmunt's mail was not directed at
any specific person.

I personally would probably have written the specific mail differently,
but as I said earlier, I see this as the experience of a frustrated
contributor who is overwhelmed by the amount of work and information
after just having shared a solution to a specific problem. This is a
very real problem and I think it's worth acknowledging it. The main
question to me was: how much is it the default expectation that
contributors go all the way and how do we treat them (and their
solution) if they can't/don't want to generalise it.


>>>> Ubuntu is different because we invite people to share their ideas and we
>>>> welcome people in. Dismissing a helpful developer is unproductive and
>>>> more importantly actively damaging to the project.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure who the helpful developer you're referring to is?  Blasting
>>> someone who offers suggestions about how best to get one's work
>>> incorporated into Ubuntu is not, IMO, helpful.
>>
>> I'm not sure Zygmunt's intent was to get dh_splitpackage into Ubuntu. At
>> least it's not mentioned in the initial email. The way I read the mail
>> is "Hey, I solved a problem I ran into, check it out if you're interested."
>
> In that case a simple "That's great, but I'm not interested in trying to get
> it into Ubuntu" would have been sufficient.

I'm a bit surprised - to me this never seemed to be part of the email
exchange.


>>> I see in another part of this thread that
>>> Zygmunt is going to work with the Debhelper upstream to see if this can
>>> be incorporated.  I think that's very good news.
>>
>> I agree that it's good news, the question is if this was the most
>> pain-free way to "get there".
>>
> I agree it's quite unfortunate that Evan's initial helpful suggestions weren't
> better received.  If they had been, a lot of pain would have been avoided.
>
>>> I think that sitting idly by while people are hostile and
>>> negative makes the environment more difficult for everyone.
>>
>> I totally agree with this and I did feel the need to step in.
>
> It's unfortunate (IMO) that you decided to step in and defend such behavior.

I did not defend it, I decided to step in when I felt the discussion was
becoming personal.


>>> Instead of a long
>>> rant attacking Ubuntu and Debian, Zygmunt could have just said he wasn't
>>> interested in doing that work, but he didn't.  He went on the attack and
>>> I think it's unreasonable for you to attack me for calling him on it.
>>
>> There certainly was frustration in that mail, but it also contained
>> valuable feedback about how it feels contributing something to
>> Ubuntu/Debian for somebody who is not participating in Ubuntu
>> development every single day.
>>
>> I think it's absolutely possible to point out that the tone of an email
>> is not OK, the critical difference between our two perceptions is in
>> "rant of a frustrated contributor" vs. "attack of our projects".
>
> Perhaps rant of a frustrated non-contributor.  Most of the "Oh, I'd have to
> ..." in the response was completely inaccurate.  If the response had been
> further questions about what would be required to work on integrating it with
> debhelper, then it would have been completely appropriate (even with some
> mention of being worried about the level of effort required).

I can't ask this of anybody else, but what I would try to do in such a
situation is to ask questions instead. I mentioned a few examples in my
mail earlier on. At every single time, anyone of us can deescalate a
discussion.


>>>> Negative:
>>>>  - some confusion about email addresses,
>>>>  - a lasting impression that contributing to Debian and Ubuntu is hard
>>>>    and you might get flamed if you share your work but might be too
>>>>    busy to fully generalise it, etc etc.
>>>    - Ubuntu developers getting flamed for upholding project values
>>
>> It seems we both clashed in trying to do the same.
>>
>>>    - At least one Ubuntu developer feeling like the Canonical community
>>>    team
>>>    
>>>      is more committed to Canonical employees than Ubuntu.
>>
>> Jono, Jorge, David and Ahmed were not part of this debate.
>>
>> It's an idle side-path of the discussion, but I don't want anybody
>> treated on this mailing list like Zygmunt was treated, Canonical
>> employee or not.
>
> I don't sense any concern until it was a Canonical person being told they were
> behaving inappropriately.  AIUI you are the person on the community team
> tasked with working with Ubuntu developers, so what I have to go on is your
> reaction to this.  I think the reply that Evan got was completely
> inappropriate and unfair.  He was just trying to be helpful.  When I see some
> concern over this, then I'll be glad to reconsider.

I agree that Evan was trying to be helpful and I noted his contributions
to the discussion as positive.

The two points that worried me were the general question about our
default expectations and the tone that became personal.

Have a great day,
 Daniel

--
Get involved with Ubuntu Development: http://identi.ca/ubuntudev
http://twitter.com/ubuntudev http://facebook.com/ubuntudev

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

About contribution (Was Re: [ANNOUNCE] dh_splitpackage 0.1)

Zygmunt Krynicki-4
W dniu 04.06.2011 22:40, Daniel Holbach pisze:

I don't wish to continue this thread much longer (specifically under the
dh_splitpackage banner). I wish to say a few things that could clear the
confusion I have caused.

1) I now understand how Evan's response indeed _was_ helpful but I did
not take it as such at that time. My original announcement was not an
intent to be included in ubuntu. I just had no better place to shout
"here, have look". I never requested inclusion. Evan's response was in
some way appropriate as he was looking after the image of the Ubuntu
community. I respect that.

Thank you Evan for noticing my code and taking the time to voice your
concern.

2) I never said I was not willing to cooperate with upstream in general.
My (emotional) response was intended to highlight the problem that you
seem to be distilling now - that contribution is a non-trivial process.
It takes some guts to go to a public mailing list and show your code
that does something. We should remember that each time the first
response someone gets can really make a lasting impression on the
would-be contributor. We should also not take for granted that the
contributor understands Ubuntu, Debian or any other large and complex
community as much as we do.

Educating the contributors is a long and subtle process. We can observe
the same interactions within the Kernel. We created this very strange
world and it's easy to forget that not everyone is living in it.
Response such as the one Evan sent, despite being of best intentions,
could be regarded as an insult or offence.

3) I'd like to thank Daniel. Thank you. I never asked for this but your
response caused me to continue working on this (and subsequently
releasing the next version a few hours ago).

Best regards
Zygmunt Krynicki

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel