<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Oct 25, 2015 12:53, "Jan Kratochvil" <<a href="mailto:jan.kratochvil@redhat.com">jan.kratochvil@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:07:47 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:<br>
> > I built 4.1 for rawhide. If that checks out to be OK, I can push<br>
> > an update for F23 also.<br>
><br>
> I do not understand why a major rebase could be permitted after all the F-23<br>
> freezing stages? It may cause FTBFSes or even broken builds. What is then<br>
> all the release engineering good for? Why not to just run Rawhide then?<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">I have to agree. I have been bitten too many times by minor tweaks breaking builds in the OS. However the rules where a completely frozen build system was causing problems in the past so I am expecting make is considered less important than gcc?<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> This situation may be a FAQ, sorry I do not read every mail here. I did not<br>
> want to be negative/discouraging, just I have seen such FTBFS regression(s) in<br>
> Fedora in the past.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Jan<br>
> --<br>
> devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br>
> Fedora Code of Conduct: <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct">http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct</a></p>