pushing updates for FTBFS

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:06:09 -0700
Eric Smith <eric at brouhaha.com> wrote:

> A bug was filed against meshlab because of an FTBFS for Fedora 14.  I 
> added a patch to resolve it and submitted an update.  After seven
> days with no feedback, I was able to push it to stable.

Were there reports of the existing build causing problems? 

Personally, I would check such changes in, but only push out an update
in f14 if there were other changes that made it worthwhile, or the
existing build caused issues. 

Rawhide of course you should build for for these issues. 

> For an FTBFS for a new Fedora release, does it really make sense to
> have the seven day delay?  I don't see what the downside would be of
> allowing it to be pushed to stable immediately.  Even if there's
> something wrong with the update, it isn't going to replace a working
> package.

I don't see the point of pushing it as an update at all, unless it's
fixing some bad behavior in the existing build or there are other
reasons (upstream update, etc). 

All just IMHO. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100921/61839122/attachment.bin