| 1 |
Hi! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thu, 09 Jul 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > What I meant is when I get a stabilization bug for |
| 6 |
> > cat-egory/foo-1.2.3 which depends on >=other-cat/bar-1.0.5. The |
| 7 |
> > latter is amd64 but not alpha or ~alpha. And it, in turn, has yet |
| 8 |
> > more deps in the same vein. Now I have several options: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If bar-1.0.5 isn't alpha or ~alpha, then foo-1.2.3 shouldn't be ~alpha |
| 11 |
> either, and repoman should complain about this for any non-dev/exp |
| 12 |
> arches. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What can I say? Apparently some devs file stabilization bugs |
| 15 |
without checking these things. I run repoman full before |
| 16 |
committing anything, so that's where the buck stops. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> If it isn't ~alpha to begin with, then it shouldn't be going |
| 19 |
> stable on alpha. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Ack. Hence my mention of "keyword and soak." |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I am confident that nobody here would argue that "casual |
| 24 |
stabilization bugs" are okay and the arch teams should just suck |
| 25 |
it up. But unfortunately, it still happens. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Tobias |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Sent from aboard the Culture ship |
| 32 |
GCU (River Class) Displacement Activity |
Archives