On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:16PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> That said, a reasonable QA would cherry-pick such "solution >> candidates" from *-testing and integrate them. Simply flooding >> maintainers "with complaint mails" about broken deps, maintainers >> believe to already have fixed doesn't help anybody. Neither the >> testers (who can't test because of these broken deps), nor the >> maintainers (who believe to have done everything possible), nor the >> users (who will end up with low-quality distros). > > What the maintainers could have done is not upload a package that breaks > binary compatibility into a distribution that's attempting to stabalise > for release. That's a way too simplistic view - It's simply that other processes (upstream release cycles, upstream release processes, package maintainer's time slots, etc.) are not in sync with Fedora's cycles and that Fedora's wanna-be QA's delay slots are severely adding to the already existing problems. > Really. Don't do that. Really, your vision is impractical and non-applicable. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
