Am 29.11.2013 09:34, schrieb Vincent Untz:
Le jeudi 28 novembre 2013, à 16:01 +0100, Tomáš
Chvátal a écrit :
Dne Čt 28. listopadu 2013 14:32:54, Dominique
Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar
(just to show, this is not black/white magic..
and describing this in
a way that it's clear and not 'subject to the mood of Stephan' is
difficult, but should be a goal to strive for).
Yes I wholeheartly agree that currently it is just a magic we do there.
For the record, I don't think we need to have a perfect solution at the
very beginning. It's just a matter of having the review team learn by
experience what might break and have that take the long way instead of
the short way.
Once we learn about the breakage patterns (and I'm pretty sure we know
quite a few of them ;-)), and we use the proposal for them, we'll see
less breakage and we can identify the next batch of breakage patterns.
I don't think it should be the responsibility of the review team to
check that. The review team doesn't integrate everything into a distro,
that's the Factory maintainers team. Before we implemented reviews in
the OBS, the reviewers had to make sure when to accept which package set
at what point in time. But this task (rightfully) moved to the Factory
maintainers set of responsibilities.
While I'm particularly cautious when I see glibc/autotools/systemd/...
submissions, my (and any other reviewers) main concern is not what it
may break. It's if the submission itself and alone is correct. Whether
the submission should go through a staging project or not is to be
discussed between F. maintainers and responsible devel project
maintainers. But this isn't black and white either and just asking
people usually works best.
(+ it's always possible to revert in Factory if a
breakage is found)
An often forgotten option!
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org