| 1 |
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 19 August 2012 04:41:17 Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 8/18/12 5:31 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > i'll probably land it later this weekend/monday. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Would be nice having a list of bugs open so people might have a look and |
| 7 |
>> see if there is something big left. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> we've been making trackers for the glibc upgrades: |
| 10 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=glibc-2.16 |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
While trackers are of course the right way to handle this, it is |
| 13 |
generally best to announce timelines more than two days in advance. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You're certainly not the only case of this problem - I've noticed a |
| 16 |
tendency to post a tracker for some issue, watch nothing happen for |
| 17 |
six months, and then see an announcement that the change is being |
| 18 |
pushed through in a few days. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Changes with a big impact should be announced on the lists well before |
| 21 |
they are made. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also, while users running unstable systems are naturally going to be |
| 24 |
at risk for unforeseen issues, this isn't an unforeseen issue. When |
| 25 |
we know a problem exists, we generally should fix it before we commit |
| 26 |
it. If some uncommon package breaks I think we can live with that, |
| 27 |
but gnutls doesn't fall into that category. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm not really interested in the blame game either. This isn't your |
| 30 |
problem, or the gnutls maintainer's problem - this is Gentoo's |
| 31 |
problem, and I hope we don't make it our user's problem for failure to |
| 32 |
work together. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives