I
@leniwcowaty @m @TheEvilSkeleton
From what I can tell, the root problem is resources burnt and reputation damage created by users getting old software.
Imo there's a fair case that the one who packages is to be the first line of support that maybe informs upstream.
To solve that problem there are many options. Adjusting the support link, branding, only shipping the flatpak etc. would be some possibilities.
Which way to go imo would be up to a calm discussion between distro and upstream, no?
@TheEvilSkeleton I'm not sure if my work environment hardened me in that direction or if it's just because I'm reaching my mid thirties and am thus basically dead, but I think being more relaxed would've been the solution.
Just repeatedly forcing the topic back to the point - and ideally from the jump not giving them the chance to get distracted.
IIRC Sebastian Wick similarly had an issue with a PR where imo he escalated too quickly (if you follow him on Mastodon you'll know).
@TheEvilSkeleton @reflex From a purist perspective? Whoever packages the code is to be the person that gets to triage, that was where I was going with what I wrote.
So in the case of unofficial flathub packages, whoever makes those packages is imo supposed to be the one that checks if they're just outdated or still true.
From a pragmatist standpoint, if that particular flatpack is known to package new releases quickly, you could again make the case that it'd be valid to go to upstream.
@reflex @TheEvilSkeleton From a purist point of view, only flatpaks are valid, everything else should go through the distro - even if it's arch.
From a pragmatist standpoint you could make the case that arch, tumbleweed etc. *should* be up to date enough. But at that point you can also include Ubuntu or Fedora on their freshest version since they shouldn't be too far behind with those... (Ubuntu LTS is where things start getting funky)
@TheEvilSkeleton I don't think you need to be diligent there. A simple "Issues x 2h" for a rough estimate that isn't completely outlandish would do the trick.
The only thing I'm looking at here, is what I think to be the best way for you to get what you want, since I understand your plight.
And from that perspective I can only arrive that the tone is what killed it. It is understandable that things went the way they did, your position is understandable, but it is just not *effective*.
@TheEvilSkeleton Impart onto them the human cost this has if need be. Give them numbers to make them understand the problem and thus be your ally in solving it, rather than demanding solutions.
Show them that this caused a X support request in the past while, wasting Y hours.
If being confronted with a problem they created and its effects fails to convince them to help, then it's entirely fair to publicly call them out on it. That'll likely give you more public support than what we saw earlier
@TheEvilSkeleton We agree on a lot of things and sure, generally what you write here comes from a fair perspective, but ultimately, I don't think that matters.
Upstream has a problem and they need to work together with downstream to fix it. That will require collaboration, including the *tone* of collaboration. Framing issues as a shared problem to be solved together. You saw me write that in the other thread: No amount of being on the right side here will get you past that fact.
@reflex @TheEvilSkeleton That would make sense and while I did not pay too much attention until around... 2 years ago, I swear that used and still is to some degree the case.
