Your link demonstrates the exact opposite. GNOME rejected a patch for disabling mouse acceleration profiles, and I then ported that patch to Pop!_OS. It was often the case that I merged third party patches into Pop!_OS that were either rejected by GNOME, or were in an actively-open PR. In all instances where contributions could be upstreamed that we worked on personally, pull requests were given to the appropriate projects. And it is the case that many such instances were merged into GNOME, such as the keyboard settings page redesign. Our team has submitted many contributions to GTK, GNOME, and other projects over the years, so to smear us for not contributing upstream is incredibly deceitful.
Issues with youtube-dl being outdated are constantly reported on Launchpad, and are still an issue to this day because YouTube keeps changing the API. It was reported at that time as well. In fact, I have submitted several patches upstream to Ubuntu through Launchpad over the years, but unfortunately they typically go straight into limbo because developers rarely notice them, and it’s difficult to get their attention. It’s usually better to go straight to the upstream developer to get those changes merged there, and therefore the issue will be fixed in the next release of Ubuntu when they package the updated software. If Canonical is interested in any of the work we have done in Pop!_OS, they are also free to take from our GitHub repositories. It’s all open source, after all.
It speaks to me that you have certain intentions and motivations in your speech to paper over the good we’ve done over the years to focus on small nit picks. Nitpicking an obscure debian changelog that no one reads and was never presented to the user is a very poor argument. I was frustrated at the time because youtube-dl kept breaking and we kept getting issue reports on it. I was unable to get any response from Canonical, so I fixed it myself in Pop. I haven’t written anything in the debian changelog fields since then.
Your link demonstrates the exact opposite. GNOME rejected a patch for disabling mouse acceleration profiles, and I then ported that patch to Pop!_OS. It was often the case that I merged third party patches into Pop!_OS that were either rejected by GNOME, or were in an actively-open PR. In all instances where contributions could be upstreamed that we worked on personally, pull requests were given to the appropriate projects. And it is the case that many such instances were merged into GNOME, such as the keyboard settings page redesign. Our team has submitted many contributions to GTK, GNOME, and other projects over the years, so to smear us for not contributing upstream is incredibly deceitful.
Issues with youtube-dl being outdated are constantly reported on Launchpad, and are still an issue to this day because YouTube keeps changing the API. It was reported at that time as well. In fact, I have submitted several patches upstream to Ubuntu through Launchpad over the years, but unfortunately they typically go straight into limbo because developers rarely notice them, and it’s difficult to get their attention. It’s usually better to go straight to the upstream developer to get those changes merged there, and therefore the issue will be fixed in the next release of Ubuntu when they package the updated software. If Canonical is interested in any of the work we have done in Pop!_OS, they are also free to take from our GitHub repositories. It’s all open source, after all.
It speaks to me that you have certain intentions and motivations in your speech to paper over the good we’ve done over the years to focus on small nit picks. Nitpicking an obscure debian changelog that no one reads and was never presented to the user is a very poor argument. I was frustrated at the time because youtube-dl kept breaking and we kept getting issue reports on it. I was unable to get any response from Canonical, so I fixed it myself in Pop. I haven’t written anything in the debian changelog fields since then.