Path: csiph.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 03:40:02 +0200
Message-ID: <qgpou-8an-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <qe1gC-53J-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qgfpa-21B-55@gated-at.bofh.it> <qglNT-2VM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qgmAi-48q-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <qgoC6-715-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <debian@kitterman.com>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 28
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:7491



On October 5, 2015 8:42:40 PM EDT, Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 at 09:33 Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Except in this case you not only didn't but then got defensive when
>called
>> on it.  If you'd just reacted with something like "Oops, made a
>mistake,
>> I'll
>> revert it from svn and ask for it to be removed from experimental."
>> (fortunately for experimental we can do that) then this wouldn't have
>been
>> a big deal.
>>
>
>I get the impression that the complaint was "process wasn't followed"
>as
>opposed to "I didn't want that package in experimental". So unless I am
>mistaken, there doesn't seem to be any need to remove the package from
>experimental. In this particular case.

I think that generally when one transgresses on someone else's package in a way the maintainer doesn't like it's the responsibility of the transgressor to offer to fix it.

It may well be that the maintainer would have declined the offer, but I think offering to return the situation to the status quo ante is appropriate.  

Scott K