| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:33 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 20:22 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Let's do this the other way around and be react based on facts and not |
| 5 |
> > speculations. |
| 6 |
> > Let's change the policy for a year for selected packages as I |
| 7 |
> > outlined, monitor bugs and after a year see response times, affected |
| 8 |
> > users and if downstream patches are accumulated. Then we can decide if |
| 9 |
> > we need to patch upstream packages. |
| 10 |
> > If we need to patch upstream package anyway, not follow upstream |
| 11 |
> > policy and not accepting input for various of permutations and |
| 12 |
> > architecture from all users, this discussion is nearly void. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> ...and for how long did you exactly ignore the standing policy that |
| 15 |
> suddenly we need a new testing period? How about we do the opposite |
| 16 |
> and you prove a *single* bug found downstream using this method so far? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Wouldn't the flip side of this be demonstrating that this has actually |
| 19 |
caused issues? If following upstream discovers no bugs and also |
| 20 |
causes no issues, why not leave it to maintainer discretion? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm not talking about hypothetical issues. I'm talking about specific |
| 23 |
issues with this specific example, that supposedly has already done |
| 24 |
all the testing necessary... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives