On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 17:03 +0200, Oliver Falk wrote: > > 1. A spurious build or test failure which happens on all arches > > but intermittently. > > 2. A simple error introduced in the package update. > > 3. Something 'hard' which the arch team need to look into. > > 4. A compiler bug. > > OK, for is possible sure, but doesn't happen quite often hopefully. You mean that #4 is possible but shouldn't happen often? That's true at the moment but once we start pulling in new architectures it could happen more often. We should make sure that it's relatively easy for a package maintainer to see a compiler failure, and just say "Don't Care" and leave it for the arch maintainer to deal with (although the more conscientious package maintainers would actually file the compiler bug with test case for themselves). Being able to file a bug and then push a button for 'release the build anyway' seems not to be too much of an imposition. In fact, _other_ than compiler bugs, I suspect that the _majority_ of bugs which just happen to kill one build but not others may well be generic bugs which are sensitive to timing or other criteria, and not really arch-specific at all. Which is why it's so irresponsible to let partially-failed builds make it through to the repo without _any_ interaction from the maintainer at all. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
