Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] neon, subversion & the stable grimoire

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] neon, subversion & the stable grimoire
  • Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:10:57 +0200

Am Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:23:37 -0500
schrieb Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>:

> We should not hold back the latest version of something just because some
> other package doesn't like it.

Ahem... gcc version upgrades, anyone? Of course gcc is special, but this is
very nice example of us holding something back because a heck of a lot of
other spells would break;-)

> Typically the way we handle this is making a versioned spell, with a
> warning they need to pick a specific version if their goal is to make it
> work with some other package that is known to be picky.

...or we just decide not to upgrade the version until it is safe.
Just depends on how serious one takes the breakage. Subversion being broken
is quite serious, provided that it may be a prerequesite to summon stuff.
That being said, it's not completely broken, just for specific urls...

> Really the fix for this is upstream and bugs should get filed and pressure
> applied there as much as possible.

Of course, upstream should get it right eventually. And in this case I feel
reminded of the fact the neon can be quite ... PITA is the term, I guess.
I built subversion from scratch on Solaris and had a better experience using
the serf library instead of neon - Oh, we still miss a spell for that one...

Well, my bottom question: Do we actually have a strict policy on never holding
back updates when they may break some spell / feature of a spell?


Alrighty then,

Thomas.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page