| 1 |
On 12/7/15 7:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 2) Unclear ownership of the problem. One guy makes a commit, 100 packages |
| 4 |
>> break. Who is responsible? Its really murky. This is really the toughest |
| 5 |
>> problem to me. |
| 6 |
> It isn't murky at all. Nobody should ever commit something that |
| 7 |
> simply breaks something else. Sometimes it is unforseen, and that |
| 8 |
> might be ok if it is rare, but the committer can still go and revert |
| 9 |
> their commit and sort things out. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Does that include stuff that breaks on systems using musl instead of |
| 12 |
glibc? Or uclibc? or eudev instead of udev. What about openrc vs |
| 13 |
systemd? Shall I go on? Of course its murky. If you disagree, I'll be |
| 14 |
more than happy to pull out dozens of emails where people object when |
| 15 |
their stuff breaks other people's stuff with the infamous "why should we |
| 16 |
support that shit?" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Anyhow, if the emails are easily filter or have an easy out, I see no |
| 19 |
problem. Murky or not. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 23 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 24 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 25 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 26 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives