Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #10072 > unrolled thread

Planet Debian revisions

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Planet Debian revisions Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2018-12-30 18:10 +0100
    Re: Planet Debian revisions Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2018-12-31 16:10 +0100
      Re: Planet Debian revisions Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2019-01-01 21:30 +0100
        Re: Planet Debian revisions Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-01 21:40 +0100
          Re: Planet Debian revisions Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-02 13:20 +0100
            Re: Planet Debian revisions Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-02 16:50 +0100
              Re: Planet Debian revisions Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2019-01-02 17:10 +0100
                Re: Planet Debian revisions Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2019-01-02 17:40 +0100
              Re: Planet Debian revisions Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-01-02 17:50 +0100
              Re: Planet Debian revisions Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2019-01-02 19:00 +0100
                Re: Planet Debian revisions Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-02 22:50 +0100
                  Re: Planet Debian revisions Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2019-01-02 23:20 +0100
                    Re: Planet Debian revisions "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 01:40 +0100
                      Re: Planet Debian revisions Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 08:30 +0100
                        Re: Planet Debian revisions Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 08:40 +0100
                Re: Planet Debian revisions Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 01:40 +0100
              Re: Planet Debian revisions Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2019-01-02 23:30 +0100
                Re: Planet Debian revisions Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 00:00 +0100
                  Re: Planet Debian revisions Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 16:10 +0100
                    Re: Planet Debian revisions Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 16:30 +0100
                    Re: Planet Debian revisions Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-03 16:40 +0100
                      Re: Planet Debian revisions Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 17:00 +0100
              Re: Planet Debian revisions Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 16:20 +0100
                Re: Planet Debian revisions Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 16:30 +0100
                  Re: Planet Debian revisions Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 16:40 +0100
                    Re: Planet Debian revisions Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2019-01-03 17:10 +0100
                    Re: Planet Debian revisions Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 18:00 +0100
                    Re: Planet Debian revisions Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 18:00 +0100
                Re: Planet Debian revisions Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-03 16:40 +0100
                  Re: Planet Debian revisions Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 19:20 +0100
                    Re: Planet Debian revisions Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-04 15:30 +0100
                      Re: Planet Debian revisions Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 16:40 +0100
                Re: Planet Debian revisions Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2019-01-03 19:20 +0100
                  Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2019-01-04 16:10 +0100
                    Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages] Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-04 18:30 +0100
                      Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages] Ulrike Uhlig <ulrike@debian.org> - 2019-01-04 18:50 +0100
                        Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages] Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2019-01-05 20:50 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#10104

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 02:47pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:

> Looks good! I like it.
>
> One tiny thingy based on a remark: I've looked up 'slur' in the
> dictionary and 'slander' and 'libel' seem to be synonyms that might be
> more widely known. Maybe a native speaker could confirm this.

'slander' seems fine but 'libel' implies you are doing something
illegal.  'slander' and 'slurs' need not be illegal.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10105

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 03:25:07PM +0000, Sean Whitton wrote:
>On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 02:47pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
>> Looks good! I like it.
>>
>> One tiny thingy based on a remark: I've looked up 'slur' in the
>> dictionary and 'slander' and 'libel' seem to be synonyms that might be
>> more widely known. Maybe a native speaker could confirm this.
>
>'slander' seems fine but 'libel' implies you are doing something
>illegal.  'slander' and 'slurs' need not be illegal.

Slander and libel are equally "illegal" under common law: the former is 
spoken while the latter is written, and both are civil rather than 
criminal matters. This varies by jurisdiction, as does protection of 
true statements, so it's important to be clear about the "where". (And 
historically, slander was punishable by the removal of the tongue--so it 
hardly seems a lesser matter!)

Mike Stone

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10099

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> 
> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should
> add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but
> not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much.
> 
Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the
committer should send a direct email message to the author of the
removed content explaining the reason for the removal."

That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit
message forever.  It also allows the author something perhaps more
complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit message upon which
to base a decision on how to proceed.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10100

On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: 

> Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, 
> the committer should send a direct email message to the author 
> of the removed content explaining the reason for the removal." 

Ah please not.

> That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in 
> commit message forever.  It also allows the author something 
> perhaps more complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit 
> message upon which to base a decision on how to proceed. 

And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg 
is fine.

And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you want. 
:)

-- 
bye, Joerg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10102

I have built up quite a backlog of email, so I did not see that the
discussion had effectively concluded when I wrote my message.

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 04:25:14PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> 
> > Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the
> > committer should send a direct email message to the author of the
> > removed content explaining the reason for the removal."
> 
> Ah please not.
> 
> > That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit
> > message forever.  It also allows the author something perhaps more
> > complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit message upon which
> > to base a decision on how to proceed.
> 
> And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg is fine.
> 
I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in that case.
I have had parts of my site stop functioning and known of it for some
time.  An email from someone telling me that it is broken is something I
consider to be helpful.

In any event, I don't think it is particularly important enough to
warrant changing something for which consensus has already been
established.

> And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you want. :)
> 
I think we have enough flamewars ongoing at the moment that I am not
going to take the bait to start a philosophical/religious discussion on
the merits of short/concise commit messages :-)

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10106

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Quoting Roberto C. Sánchez (2019-01-03 16:33:51)
> I have built up quite a backlog of email, so I did not see that the
> discussion had effectively concluded when I wrote my message.
> 
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 04:25:14PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > 
> > > Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, 
> > > the committer should send a direct email message to the author of 
> > > the removed content explaining the reason for the removal."
> > 
> > Ah please not.
> > 
> > > That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in 
> > > commit message forever.  It also allows the author something 
> > > perhaps more complete than a short sentence fragment in a commit 
> > > message upon which to base a decision on how to proceed.
> > 
> > And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg 
> > is fine.
> > 
> I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in that 
> case. I have had parts of my site stop functioning and known of it for 
> some time.  An email from someone telling me that it is broken is 
> something I consider to be helpful.

I find it problematic to _promise_ an email notice upon removal.

Sure it is a nice gesture to notify, but I see no reason to codify that.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10107

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 05:50:03PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> 
> > > And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit msg
> > > is fine.
> > I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in that case.
> > I have had parts of my site stop functioning and known of it for some
> > time.  An email from someone telling me that it is broken is something I
> > consider to be helpful.
> 
> In principle I agree. Now tell me, for a good chunk of the planet blogs,
> which email? Without investing lots of time to find out.
> 
I see your point.  My invalid assumption and my ignorance regarding the
implementation of Planet did not allow me to see that there was a
potential obstacle there.

> > > And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you want.
> > > :)
> > I think we have enough flamewars ongoing at the moment that I am not
> > going to take the bait to start a philosophical/religious discussion on
> > the merits of short/concise commit messages :-)
> 
> But but, I was short, I only used 4242 words why I added a comma at that
> position!
> 
Just be sure to keep the first line to a maximum of 72 characters
followed by a hard line break and a blank line so 'git log --oneline'
looks sane.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10108

On 15271 March 1977, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: 

>> And I sometimes remove blogs for them just going 5xx. A commit 
>> msg is fine.
> I still think an email to the author would be a good thing in 
> that case.  I have had parts of my site stop functioning and 
> known of it for some time.  An email from someone telling me 
> that it is broken is something I consider to be helpful.

In principle I agree. Now tell me, for a good chunk of the planet 
blogs, which email? Without investing lots of time to find out.

>> And who says a commi message is short? Write a novel, if you 
>> want. :)
> I think we have enough flamewars ongoing at the moment that I am 
> not going to take the bait to start a philosophical/religious 
> discussion on the merits of short/concise commit messages :-) 

But but, I was short, I only used 4242 words why I added a comma 
at that position!


-- 
bye, Joerg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10103

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 10:19am -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>>
>> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should
>> add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but
>> not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much.
>>
> Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the
> committer should send a direct email message to the author of the
> removed content explaining the reason for the removal."
>
> That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit
> message forever.

Yes, let's avoid this.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10109

Hi,

Sean Whitton:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 10:19am -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>>>
>>> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should
>>> add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but
>>> not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much.
>>>
>> Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the
>> committer should send a direct email message to the author of the
>> removed content explaining the reason for the removal."
>>
>> That keeps potentially loaded statements from being recorded in commit
>> message forever.
> 
> Yes, let's avoid this.

As currently phrased, if people are unsure, they should contact the
planet administrator's team. I think this should solve such concerns.

Ulrike

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10120

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello Ulrike,

On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 06:03pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:

>> Yes, let's avoid this.
>
> As currently phrased, if people are unsure, they should contact the
> planet administrator's team. I think this should solve such concerns.

I'm afraid I don't follow.  I wanted to keep details out of commit
messages because of the fact that commit messages are a permanent
record.  How does contacting the planet admin team solve this?

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10124

Hi Sean!

Sean Whitton:
> Hello Ulrike,
> 
> On Thu 03 Jan 2019 at 06:03pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
> 
>>> Yes, let's avoid this.
>>
>> As currently phrased, if people are unsure, they should contact the
>> planet administrator's team. I think this should solve such concerns.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't follow.  I wanted to keep details out of commit
> messages because of the fact that commit messages are a permanent
> record.  How does contacting the planet admin team solve this?

Sorry my message was not clear:

I think these details should be in the commit message, not necessarily
being detailed more than "(possible) violation of CoC" or similar, but
if ever people are not sure about how much detail should be in there
they should contact planet admins.

I found it super useful to be able to look up in Git when & that Norbert
had deleted the sentence that stated that the removal of his feed was
based on a decision made by the AH team. The AH team (or Laura acting as
part of it to be precise) mentioned this explicitly in their commit
message. This made it clear that this feed was not supposed to be
re-added without communicating either with them, the planet admins or
escalating the issue to the DPL if deemed necessary. If they had only
added a sentence as a comment in the config file of planet, it would
have been even easier to dismiss.

Cheers!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10110

Hi!

Roberto C. Sánchez:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 05:39:58PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>>
>> On #6 I was tempted to add "When a blog is removed, the committer should
>> add a comment listing the posts that resulted in it being removed", but
>> not sure if that's overloading it a bit too much.
>>
> Probably better to say something like, "When a blog is removed, the
> committer should send a direct email message to the author of the
> removed content explaining the reason for the removal."

Please, no. A commit message ensures that everybody is aware of the
removal reason, including planet admins. Resorting to email? I don't
think emails are encoded in the feeds and we cannot reasonably expect
people to search for them...

Cheers
u.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10122 — Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages]

Ulrike Uhlig writes ("Re: Planet Debian revisions"):
> Please, no. A commit message ensures that everybody is aware of the
> removal reason, including planet admins. Resorting to email? I don't
> think emails are encoded in the feeds and we cannot reasonably expect
> people to search for them...

I agree that some kind of publication of the reason is a good thing.

However:

Sean Whitton writes ("Re: Planet Debian revisions"):
> I'm afraid I don't follow.  I wanted to keep details out of commit
> messages because of the fact that commit messages are a permanent
> record.  How does contacting the planet admin team solve this?

I very strongly agree with Sean that we should not immemorialise such
things in commit messages.

Years later someone who did some bad things when they were much
younger might reasonably come to us and say "can you please redact
that unfortunate incident from your public web page - it's ancient
history now".  We should be able to honour such a request without
using git-filter-branch.

Surely we can find a way to make this information transparent in a way
that makes it easier to expire it ?  Even a dedicated mailing list
would be better since it would let us expire the archives.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10125 — Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 03:03pm GMT, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Years later someone who did some bad things when they were much
> younger might reasonably come to us and say "can you please redact
> that unfortunate incident from your public web page - it's ancient
> history now".  We should be able to honour such a request without
> using git-filter-branch.

Exactly.  I understand Ulrike's practical concerns but do not consider
them to outweigh the need to avoid permanency.  Even writing "possible
CoC violation" could hurt someone twenty years down the line.

> Surely we can find a way to make this information transparent in a way
> that makes it easier to expire it ?  Even a dedicated mailing list
> would be better since it would let us expire the archives.

Yes.  The commit message could contain a link to the mailing list
archives, which could be made to 404.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10126 — Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages]

Hi!

Sean Whitton:
> On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 03:03pm GMT, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
>> Years later someone who did some bad things when they were much
>> younger might reasonably come to us and say "can you please redact
>> that unfortunate incident from your public web page - it's ancient
>> history now".  We should be able to honour such a request without
>> using git-filter-branch.
> 
> Exactly.  I understand Ulrike's practical concerns but do not consider
> them to outweigh the need to avoid permanency.  Even writing "possible
> CoC violation" could hurt someone twenty years down the line.

Ack. I have no strong opinion on this detail and trust your judgement to
find a possibility that would satisfy concerns of transparency while
being respectful to privacy.

Cheers!
u.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10159 — Re: Planet Debian revisions [and 1 more messages]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Fri 04 Jan 2019 at 05:29pm GMT, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:

>> Exactly.  I understand Ulrike's practical concerns but do not consider
>> them to outweigh the need to avoid permanency.  Even writing "possible
>> CoC violation" could hurt someone twenty years down the line.
>
> Ack. I have no strong opinion on this detail and trust your judgement to
> find a possibility that would satisfy concerns of transparency while
> being respectful to privacy.

I've added a note to the wiki page about this.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web