| 1 |
On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 12:49:59 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> However, in this case why would we want to rule out sets, "and all the |
| 5 |
> other shenanigans?" We've already established that a single stable |
| 6 |
> request bug can apply to multiple package-versions, so why not allow |
| 7 |
> full dependency specifications? If there is a set that describes what |
| 8 |
> needs to be stabilized in an atomic operation, then what is the value |
| 9 |
> in breaking it down into a million separate =-only atoms? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That rather complicates validation. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Mostly, because if you declare a list of dependencies, if any of them is a range, |
| 14 |
the subgraph of that specific atom becomes variable, not constant. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Which means you may have omitted one of the possible dependencies from one of the possible |
| 17 |
subgraphs that an AT/Keyworder will see. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This IMO would mostly negate the utility of submitter defined lists of specifications. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In that, by making the submitter resolve it all, its either "good" or "bad" |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Instead of leaving the person doing the testing in a confused state about which packages |
| 24 |
are expected to be used. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The sets as defined should either work, and the person doing them should get each and every one |
| 27 |
working as expected, or none of them should, and it should be pushed back to the submitter to |
| 28 |
fix their specification. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Levity in tester interpretation is likely to introduce side effects. |
Archives