Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] bugs in test grimoire (was: switch)

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] bugs in test grimoire (was: switch)
  • Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:44:16 -0500

On Sep 03, Flavien Bridault [f.bridault AT fra.net] wrote:
> Le vendredi 02 septembre 2005 ? 20:56 -0700, Seth Alan Woolley a ?crit :
> > In the future, we can pick one place to put notices that stuff is risky
> > instead of having people check irc, ml, etc. I suggest that not be the
> > HISTORY file nor the Changelog, otherwise a false alarm might work its
> > way up the grimoire to stable, and I'd rather not have to filter every
> > changelog-like file for stuff that's not relevant anymore.
> >
> > I think a note to the mailing list would be best. It's the best place
> > currently, and Sergey made the right decision here.
> >
>
> Just a question, what will you do for the integration into stable-rc and
> then in stable ? You will integrate it as it is now ? Without any notice
> in the spell ? So, if you include one, or any mechanism, why not do it
> at the beginning in devel ? Is that really too painful ? Trying to keep
> test grimoire as much stable as possible is anyway the better thing to
> have a good stable grimoire then.

I agree that any notices that are going to go out should start as early as
possible, if for no other reason than to let us "test" the warnings
themselves for effectiveness. However, if they only happen on the mailing
lists, this can become spammy.

I don't think they should just happen on the ML. Too few users read it,
and that problem will only increase as time goes on and our user base
increases. Even those that do read it may go months without time to keep
up, but that doesn't mean they stop updating their systems. The only thing
we know they have is the spell, and a warning if it's necessary should go
there. Of course, ideally we can figure out ways to not have to warn them,
and some of those have been suggested.

> However I'm guilty, I must admit, because I didn't know that openssl
> 0.9.7d->0.9.8 update will imply an API change. When a gcc or glibc
> update comes, its true that I'm much more careful, regardless to the
> eventual posts in the ML. The next time I will know that. ;-)

gcc, glibc, openssl, and zlib are the big ones in my experience.

Attachment: pgpnKuToTX4vR.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page