| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò |
| 2 |
<flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 15/02/2013 01:15, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> How? We don't support overlays in the main tree. I could see a |
| 5 |
>> package maintainer being nice if pinged by an overlay maintainer and |
| 6 |
>> delaying some change for a short time to let an overlay be updated, |
| 7 |
>> but issues that impact overlays should not be considered blockers on |
| 8 |
>> closing bugs on the main tree. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The problem is when you have to triple-check that the user hasn't |
| 11 |
> enabled some random fucked up overlay and you have to guess whether that |
| 12 |
> might be the cause of the problem. Yes it happens, not so rarely. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I empathize, but I'm not really sure it is a blocker for this effort. |
| 15 |
Developers already have to evaluate whether the bug the user filed is |
| 16 |
legitimate; I don't think this makes that significantly more |
| 17 |
difficult. As stated. spotting overlay usage is pretty simple as-is. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
>> If there is something wrong with the proaudio overlay just don't use |
| 21 |
>> it. The same would apply to sunset. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I don't use it; people still report bugs with it. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> -- |
| 26 |
> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 27 |
> flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 28 |
> |
Archives