On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:52:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >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. > > You're not obliged to upload the latest upstream. It's very practical to > simply not do so. So when _is_ a good time to do binary-incompatible changes to libraries? * It's not after beta freeze, because they are unwanted at that time * It's not 14 days before beta freeze, because they won't get out of updates-testing in time * It's not 14 days + 3 (4?) weeks before beta freeze - even if the library gets out of updates-testing in time, its users may not be rebuilt because the maintainer is on vacation. * What if there are two layers of users that need to be rebuilt? The delays just pile one upon another... Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
