Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Paweł Hajdan
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] pushing fixes to stable before closing bugs
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 20:03:12
Message-Id: 4FAEC1B5.9030603@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] pushing fixes to stable before closing bugs by Rich Freeman
1 On 5/12/12 6:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:34 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
3 > <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote:
4 >> The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and
5 >> _known_ regression in stable, which could be easily avoided.
6 >
7 > How can you have a regression in stable if stable has the bug already?
8
9 Let me explain in more detail. Suppose you have package foo, and you fix
10 a compile error with say qt-4.8, but the fix stays in ~arch. Now qt-4.8
11 is getting stabilized, and if we don't also grab the ~arch foo, stable
12 foo becomes broken.
13
14 Similar thing applies to e.g. gcc updates. I remember a reminder to use
15 gcc tracker bugs and include precise info which version of a package
16 works with more recent gcc, to make sure ~arch has the fixes when given
17 gcc version goes ~arch, and same for stable.
18
19 > I see the value when we're talking about security bugs, or very
20 > critical bugs, but for the run-of-the-mill minor issues that are the
21 > majority of bug reports I don't see the value in keeping bugs open for
22 > a month or two just to track that the inevitable hasn't happened yet.
23
24 Agreed. I'm talking about compile errors or crashes here. I've really
25 seen arches stabilizing packages with known problems, just having closed
26 bugs because "the fix is in ~arch".
27
28 Paweł

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] pushing fixes to stable before closing bugs Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>