Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes
rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Sep 20 14:52:28 UTC 2011
On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:16PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> That said, a reasonable QA would cherry-pick such "solution
>> candidates" from *-testing and integrate them. Simply flooding
>> maintainers "with complaint mails" about broken deps, maintainers
>> believe to already have fixed doesn't help anybody. Neither the
>> testers (who can't test because of these broken deps), nor the
>> maintainers (who believe to have done everything possible), nor the
>> users (who will end up with low-quality distros).
> What the maintainers could have done is not upload a package that breaks
> binary compatibility into a distribution that's attempting to stabalise
> for release.
That's a way too simplistic view - It's simply that other processes
(upstream release cycles, upstream release processes, package
maintainer's time slots, etc.) are not in sync with Fedora's cycles and
that Fedora's wanna-be QA's delay slots are severely adding to the
already existing problems.
> Really. Don't do that.
Really, your vision is impractical and non-applicable.
More information about the devel