On 5/12/12 6:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:34 AM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." > <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> The idea is that if you only fix in ~arch, you risk a serious and >> _known_ regression in stable, which could be easily avoided. > > How can you have a regression in stable if stable has the bug already?
Let me explain in more detail. Suppose you have package foo, and you fix a compile error with say qt-4.8, but the fix stays in ~arch. Now qt-4.8 is getting stabilized, and if we don't also grab the ~arch foo, stable foo becomes broken. Similar thing applies to e.g. gcc updates. I remember a reminder to use gcc tracker bugs and include precise info which version of a package works with more recent gcc, to make sure ~arch has the fixes when given gcc version goes ~arch, and same for stable. > I see the value when we're talking about security bugs, or very > critical bugs, but for the run-of-the-mill minor issues that are the > majority of bug reports I don't see the value in keeping bugs open for > a month or two just to track that the inevitable hasn't happened yet. Agreed. I'm talking about compile errors or crashes here. I've really seen arches stabilizing packages with known problems, just having closed bugs because "the fix is in ~arch". Paweł
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
