Re: Hard Rust requirements from May onward

On 17766 March 1977, Julian Andres Klode wrote:

>> They might even be good enough to ditch old ports - also I think that
>> shouldn't be on one maintainers decision alone.
> Do you mean "although"?

Yeah, I have a habit of mixing that (wrongly).

>> But whatever good intention may be behind this move, the way this 
>> mail was
>> written completly kills them. And completly makes it *appear* as 
>> "arrogant
>> asshole developer imposing his wants on everyone" combined with "if 
>> you dont
>> like it, sod off, you don't matter". Especially with the end of it 
>> and the
>> signature below.

>> That might not be how it was meant (most probably), but that's how it 
>> goes
>> around.
> It's fair but also I did not come up with the sentiment, but was
> paraphrasing the discussion with a fellow prominent DD on the
> #debian-apt IRC channel:

That's not an info anyone could find in that mail.

But even then, it does not make the wording and tone of the mail any 
nicer or better. It still comes around like I wrote.

See, taking this:
========================================================================
If you maintain a port without a working Rust toolchain,
please ensure it has one within the next 6 months, or
sunset the port.
========================================================================

and only changing the last half part after the , to "or please come up 
with a plan on how to keep a version of apt working for you".

Taking this

========================================================================
It's important for the project as whole to be able to
move forward and rely on modern tools and technologies
and not be held back by trying to shoehorn modern software
on retro computing devices.
========================================================================

and rewriting it *something* like

"We apt developers feel it is important to rely on modern tools and 
technologies. We understand that might be difficult for some ports where 
those tools do not yet exist and know they might need extra plans if 
they are to be kept alive."

*AND* leaving out your "Thank you for your understanding." entirely 
 would have made it *much* better. And basically transported the same 
 information, just without the condescending description of ports that 
 aren't all up with the newest tools - but do have people who care for 
 them. (And the "Thank you" part especially makes it feel like an "Eat 
 this and sod off").

I do recommend (and it is something we practice within DAM a lot, for 
example) to have others reread/proofread mails where one knows it's not 
an easy topic.

-- 
bye, Joerg