On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Emphasis is original, not mine. > > More to the point: it is entirely awful for the quality of Fedora as a > whole if Rawhide is allowed to be completely broken for substantial > periods of time - and this *did* make Rawhide completely broken. Just > about any package set besides minimal could not be installed or > updated. Several release-blocking deliverables entirely failed to > compose. Given that the breakage was not for rawhide as a whole, but only for Gnome, the problem does not seem to be as large as you imply. The complexity and fragility of *Gnome*, and its vulnerability to even very small changes of internal and external components, is a strong reason to keep other window managers accessible for developers to encounter, and be able to debug, the mess. > But if we just let things be completely broken, all that goes away: > we've no idea if half the rest of the distro is broken if we can't get > to the point of testing it because of bugs like this. Keeping a Gnome is not "half the rest of the distro". > baseline level of fundamental working-ness lets us test in much more > depth and identify breakages *as they happen* and fix them rapidly. > Refusing to revert changes like this and instead insisting that their > consequences be fixed live, while the distro fails to work or build > properly for the entire time until that's done, is just a crappy way to > do things. We have the capability to do better, thus we should. Adam, it's clear it was a problematic breakage. But there are levels of debugging that are feasible for such large and complex structures, whether they be all of Fedora or merely the Gnome toolkit. And there are *going* to be interactions that break other components. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
