| 1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:52:58 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:40 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On 10/19/2015 07:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> However, stabilizing a single package really is an impactful change. |
| 7 |
>>> The fact that you're doing 100 of them at one time doesn't really |
| 8 |
>>> diminish the impact of each one. Any of them could break a system or |
| 9 |
>>> need to be reverted. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> Since when do we allow reverting stabilization? The package needs to be |
| 13 |
>> fixed and possibly revbumped instead. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> It would really depend on the nature of the break. If it is a serious |
| 17 |
> upstream problem and no fix is available, then reverting might be the |
| 18 |
> only practical solution. It is of course not a preferred solution. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Didn't a semi-minor arch (arm, AFAIK) recently revert a major lib |
| 21 |
stabilizing, as it was clearly broken on at least some arm variants, the |
| 22 |
maintainer that did it either didn't consult with the arm-arch folks or |
| 23 |
signals got crossed and he stabilized without approval, and it was caught |
| 24 |
within an hour or less, such that the quickest and most effective way to |
| 25 |
fix the breakage was to do an immediate revert, before even figuring out |
| 26 |
a more long term fix? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The commit log said something like, "Not trying to be rude, but this is |
| 29 |
the quickest way to limit the damage", and within just a few days (two?), |
| 30 |
the package and several deps were stabilized by the arch team in |
| 31 |
question, properly this time, with fixes as appropriate to keep whole sub- |
| 32 |
archs from breaking as they were doing with the previous stabilization |
| 33 |
attempt. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
[So yes, this demonstrates the point someone made above about people |
| 36 |
actually reading these things, too. =:^) And I too have been frustrated |
| 37 |
trying to do so, but IMO this is fixing the bit that's /not/ broken, not |
| 38 |
what is. More about that in a response I'll be posting elsewhere on- |
| 39 |
thread.] |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 43 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 44 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives