Subject: [bug#73769] [PATCH] automake: distribute local gnulib directory modules

From: Bruno Haible <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:22:59 +0200

Michael Pratt wrote:
> Specifically, not that any re-generation "should" be done,
> but that users of the tarball should have the "ability" to.
> And like I said, I think we still agree on that...

Yes, we agree on that.

> > I'm glad that you are realizing the big mistake you were doing: Based on
> > discussions (only discussions, not even a committed patch!) with 1 single
> > package that uses gnulib, you wanted to modify the way gnulib works for
> > everyone. And that without even CCing the gnulib people!!
> 
> Big mistake? really? what happened?
> ...
> I assumed that I can trust the maintainers here
> to CC whoever they feel the need to CC (including those in the same organization)
> in order to gather the comments they need to make the right decisions...
> and yes, they did rightfully CC you... so is it a bad assumption?

It was a bad assumption. Karl was diligent enough to CC me as one
representative of the Gnulib people. But not every package maintainer
has such a broad view of the big picture and how the packages interoperate.

It is therefore *mandatory* that when you propose a change regarding how
packages X and Y interoperate, you discuss it with both the maintainers of X
and the maintainers of Y. Discussing it with the people of X while leaving
out the people of Y is *not acceptable*.

CCing two or more mailing lists is the right thing to do, in such situations.

> I don't intend to circumvent any channels of communication or procedures.

Good. Next time, ask yourself the question: Who is affected by my patch?
These are the people that need to be included in the discussion.

> I got "something" to work, and I wanted comments on what I had so far.
> Maybe I have some advice for myself...
> should I have added WIP (work in progress) to the subject? like "[WIP PATCH] ..."?

Definitely, yes. Your submission [1] gave the impression that it has been
tested and discussed and is ready for everyone to use.

If the patch is not ready for everyone to use, you need to say so. Like,
when I provide patches, I say whether I have tested them, on which platforms
I have tested them, and if I view them as not-yet-complete.

Bruno

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2024-10/msg00000.html