Source Mage code commit list

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:47:25 +0400
Vlad Glagolev <stealth AT sourcemage.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:35:07 -0700
> Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us> wrote:
> 
> > If it works then I don't think we should revert it for being a
> > development version (unless upstream says to *not* use it except for
> > testing :)).
> 
> Development versions _ARE MADE_ for *TESTING* _AND NOT_ for
> *PRODUCTIONAL* use. That's why they are called
> development/rc/beta/alpha/gamma/etc.

These branches may also have a fix (or fixes) for the stable version
that make the system work better for the committer. You don't know, you
just reverted it. This is why you should ask first. :)

> > We don't really have a policy for or against development
> > versions of packages, it's up to the individual and section
> > maintainers if they want to update.
> 
> Not really. We have branches. If someone wants devel version -- he
> adds a branch for it, unless if there's no stable version available
> (some security issue, etc.).

We have branches for stuff we have a fair certainty (GCC, X.org, etc.)
will break, not for every update we want to do.

> > The only requirement is that the commit casts
> > and works for the committer.
> 
> That's a bit stupid. It may work for him, but not for 20 servers with
> smgl for the corporate project.

Speaking of stupid, using the test grimoire on production machines? :p
Again, perhaps this fixes issues he's had with the current stable. I
prefer stable versions for basesystem, but it is not a requirement. And
my wants do not override another developer's wants.

> > If other developers have an issue with the
> > commit, they should bring it up with the committer (on SM-Discuss if
> > they want), but be polite. :) You can always put a spell on hold if
> > you don't want to update.
> 
> module-init-tools is a very basic spell, that must be tested _a lot_
> before committing to the test grimoire, and of course it mustn't be a
> _development_ version.

Why do you think we call it "test"? Also note that even stable is not
guaranteed to have stable releases of packages, only that *our*
packages have been (somewhat) vetted and are working. We try to keep
devel versions out, especially new releases of GCC or glibc, but again
that's a case-by-case decision by the one creating the stable-rc.

> > Remember, what you want doesn't necessarily match what others want,
> > and vice-versa.
> 
> Yes I know. But I'm just against garbage in smgl grimoires.

Since you like to make general statements without any technical or
policy arguments...one man's junk is another man's treasure.

> > Requiring extra dependencies is not a valid reason to revert. If a
> > new version needs more spells, then it needs more spells. If the
> > dependency addition is in error, then it should be removed.
> 
> bah. look at the other distros, the most _clever_ ones never add
> extra depends for SUCH basic spells, cause they're (depends) useless
> for real.

Seriously? Have you even *tried* other distros? Why do you think some
of us use SMGL? If you have an issue with a dependency, file a bug and
talk with the committer, or fix the dependency to be optional. I'm sure
Treeve added it for a reason. If the spell won't cast without the
dependency, then yes, he is correct for adding it in. If it can be made
optional, all the better, but I assume that might take more work than
just a version bump. Feel free to *fix* spells, but reverting others
changes because you disagree with them is not cool, in my opinion. If
the spells breaks for you and you can verify it's not your setup, then
yes, revert, but file a bug report and mention it in the reversion.

-sandalle

-- 
Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  http://counter.li.org/  #196285

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature