| 1 |
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:39:16 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Failure to do this will mean you're shipping out-dated documentation to |
| 5 |
> > the user. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I fail to see how this could happen, unless you'd be using terrible |
| 8 |
> hacks. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What part in my series of steps did you not understand? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
All that has to happen is somebody does the bump, and doesn't notice |
| 13 |
the documentation didn't change when they did the bump, when it in |
| 14 |
fact, aught to have changed. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
And just because _I'm_ capable of scruitinizing painfully everything |
| 17 |
about upstreams changes and actually running tests when I maintain |
| 18 |
things, doesn't mean I can actually rely on my fellow devs to do the |
| 19 |
same. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The number of bugs I spot that are "somebody bumped a package, didn't |
| 22 |
even add the new dependencies that were painfully obvious if you even |
| 23 |
looked at upstreams changes" is too damn high, to the point my |
| 24 |
intuition is often "see developer bump package, expect them to do it |
| 25 |
wrong, look at what they changed, then sigh after predicting correctly" |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't like this, but there's f-all I can actually do about it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
You have to plan for developers to cock things up, because they're |
| 30 |
human, and that's what humans do. |
Archives