| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 2 |
<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman schrieb: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I think the intent is to get stuff like this into PMS or change it, |
| 6 |
>> not to just start breaking things arbitrarily. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That interpretation is a bit at odds with the wording "We introduce a hard |
| 9 |
> deadline when all this should be fixed." |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'll let Andreas comment on his intent there. I'm not sure how a |
| 13 |
deadline could actually work. If we know about an issue today, |
| 14 |
setting a deadline won't really make anybody resolve it faster. If we |
| 15 |
judge that treecleaning the affected packages wouldn't be a big |
| 16 |
problem we could always set a deadline and then treeclean, but |
| 17 |
obviously if it is a toolchain package that isn't going to work. |
| 18 |
Long-term, if an issue comes up in a critical package we can't just |
| 19 |
say that it is after the deadline and therefore it is fine for package |
| 20 |
managers to break it the next day. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is the reality with anything concerning specifications. If the |
| 23 |
software doesn't do what the specs say, it is definitely a bug, but it |
| 24 |
isn't always a bug with the software. That's why we pay humans to |
| 25 |
deal with these kinds of problems, and we pay the people who deal with |
| 26 |
them well a lot more. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives