Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-commit - Re: [SM-Commit] GIT changes to master grimoire by Andra ???? Levstik (9b43086b66bea839222cabf5074b5f45 13424bca)

sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Source Mage code commit list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Cc: sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Commit] GIT changes to master grimoire by Andra ???? Levstik (9b43086b66bea839222cabf5074b5f45 13424bca)
  • Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:53:28 -0600

On Jan 31, seth AT swoolley.homeip.net [seth AT swoolley.homeip.net] wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 08:36:14PM +0100, "Andra?? 'ruskie' Levstik" wrote:
> > On 19:03:31 2007-01-31 Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us> wrote:
> > > Should the fixed OpenSSL/GNUTLS support be integrated into stable-rc
> > > and/or stable?
> >
> > It'll get there eventually... So I don't really care. But the way I see it
> > we lack a good definition of what should/shouldn't be integrated to stable
> > etc...
>
> here's your definition: "security fixes and critical breakage"

I think people are looking for more definition than this right now. What
is critical breakage? Is adding/fixing SSL support (like the commit in
question) a security fix?

There was some discussion around this in #sourcemage-grimoire yesterday.
Some thing that nothing but security updates should be integrated, and
everything else should get there through the regular stable release cycle
we are working hard to establish. It was suggested that integrating more
things both wastes time and compromises the integrity of the released
stable grimoire as a unit. (This is a summary; I'm not trying to speak for
people that think this, they can speak for themselves.)

Speaking only as a gatekeeper, I don't mind approving other things *IFF*
they are self-contained fixes for spells that otherwise won't build for
anyone. That is, if no one can successfully cast a given spell now, and
the fix for it only affects that spell, fine. If it works for some
situations but not others or if the fix spans multiple spells or affects
dependees or other things I prefer to leave it be until it gets there on
its own. I see value in fixing these and think that not fixing them opens
us up to reasonable criticism.

I do also see the value in leaving stable alone once we release it;
hoewever, since we're taking the approach of only vetting a certain set of
spells for each stable release right now, it seems to me that any spell we
didn't sign off on and then decide to fix later doesn't hurt the integrity
of the spells we did test and sign off on for that release.

But this is just how I see it right now. Really this is a Grimoire policy
question. Maybe it's something we should make sure potential candidates
address when the Grimoire Lead position is up for vote in March. In the
meantime we can try to figure out what makes the most sense in practice
while we do these releases and they can use that experience to help them
decide what policy to recommend.

Attachment: pgpxgx9G5DB3R.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page