pushing updates for FTBFS

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Sep 22 20:39:00 UTC 2010

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:38:50PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:37:44 -0400
> Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For (unreleased) F14, I think that the arugment that future work on
> > the package is better off starting with something that works than to
> > start off with something that's broken by new gcc, boost, etc is very
> > valid.
> Sure. I would suggest fixing the issue and even commiting the fixed
> spec, but I don't know that it's worth pushing an update out for. 
The problem is that we'd want to know what the ramifications of the update
are to the release.  What if the fix for the FTBFS causes an ABI break...
but it's also the only way to fix the FTBFS within our manpower needs?
Better to do that before F14 has shipped than be forced to do that after it
has shipped.  I can come up with other scenarios that are similar but
they're all just about identifying what cascading problems could occur up
front rather than defering it to when we have a time-critical update to get
out the door.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100922/6f62d37e/attachment.bin 

More information about the devel mailing list