| 1 |
On 27/02/2013 18:10, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel |
| 3 |
> somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and |
| 4 |
> fixing on your fellow devs |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'd say the only real mistake has been not keeping it masked to begin with. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Just so we're clear with everybody, I would suggest, the next time |
| 9 |
somebody wants to introduce a disruptive change: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
1. commit it masked — this way even if it's going to mess up the whole |
| 12 |
tree you won't be blamed; |
| 13 |
2. ask me for testing — this happened in this case, but (1) was missed; |
| 14 |
3. make sure you're around to keep the pieces. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I opened the bugs — I wasn't going to look into them any time soon, |
| 17 |
mostly because I got another huge bunch of bugs already — I started |
| 18 |
today, and after a while it became obvious (to hasufell) that many of |
| 19 |
them came down to the same issue; now I know and I'm not opening bugs |
| 20 |
for the same issue all over. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Another common one I found myself simply because I noticed it while |
| 23 |
looking at the build log. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I don't see a big problem with 3. as Michał might not have reacted yet, |
| 26 |
but it was not even 24 hours since he asked me to run the tinderbox. He |
| 27 |
might have caught the cmake issue himself, I don't know. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So my final word is that yes, this was a screw up, no, not as big as it |
| 30 |
transpire from here. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 34 |
flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
Archives