On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> 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