FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Peter Jones]

On 03/02/2010 08:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
> 
>> On 03/02/2010 06:15 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>>>>> X11 is particularly dangerous for this kind of changes, given how low
>>>>> it is in the software stack and how some code necessarily looks like
>>>>> (hardware drivers in particular are always scary stuff). The average
>>>>> leaf package is much less propice to breakage induced by minimal
>>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>> This is just plain bull. High level packages also have one line fixes
>>>> that are simple, elegant, and wrong.
>>>
>>> They are much less likely though.
>>
>> Please provide data to support this bullshit assertion.
> 
> Changing the bytes which get sent to some piece of hardware you have no or 
> only inaccurate documentation on is much more likely to cause breakage than 
> some of the simple changes which are done at application level, like 
> removing a hardcoded call to setCheckSpellingEnabled(true) to make it 
> default to the system default instead.

That isn't data. It isn't even a particularly good anecdote.

-- 
        Peter

Space, is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely
mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the
road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
		-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy