| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:58 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Agreed. I was always told that it is up to the arch teams to test the |
| 4 |
> reverse deps. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
While I think this makes the most sense in general, I think |
| 7 |
maintainers do have a role. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If some package has 75 reverse dependencies, and 1 of them tends to |
| 10 |
break every time there is an upgrade, then it makes more sense for the |
| 11 |
maintainer to stay on top of that and coordinate stabilization. The |
| 12 |
arch team isn't going to remember that, and unless they test all 75 |
| 13 |
they're not going to spot the 1 that breaks. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Now, in cases like the VOIP ones where there are only 3 reverse deps |
| 16 |
it really does make sense for the arch teams to be expected to spot |
| 17 |
issues, especially now that tools exist to make this a bit easier... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Rich |
Archives