Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] GTK+2 UPDATE REVERTED

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] GTK+2 UPDATE REVERTED
  • Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:26:25 -0700

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:45:06 -0500
George Sherwood <pilot AT beernabeer.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:18:59 +0200
> Jaka Kranjc <smgl AT lynxlynx.info> wrote:
>
> > I'll repeat my thoughts and opinions from irc:
> > - this discussion should have taken place before the revert
> > - not everyone is affected, so the severity is not that CRITICAL
> > - in your own words, most users use stable, so we should just make
> > sure this is reverted in stable-rcs (until fixed), while test should
> > stay updated
> > - if it is really such a huge problem, I'm sure the respective
> > developers will fix it in short time
> >
>
> There are my thoughts too. I appreciate that Vlad researched a
> problem that he was having and was worried that it applied to a wider
> group although no one else had reported it in IRC or via a bug report
> for SMGL. I have been running the updated gtk now for days without
> seeing any problems.
>
> I also agree that it shouldn't be moved to stable-rc until more is
> understood or the upstream developers of gtk and xorg come up with a
> solution.
>
> My main concern is one person making large reverts without involvement
> by others in the community. This problem wasn't causing large
> breakage and could have been handled more deliberately. As was
> stated before this is how test is to be used and not as a version of
> stable that has more recently updated programs as Vlad seems to want.
>
> George Sherwood

Correct.

For future issues, if a dev submits to test, then that means (provided
the developer follows our standards ;)) the commit works for the
developer. If another developer (or user) finds a problem with that
commit, bring it up (preferably with a bug report, though a post to
SM-Discuss/IRC about the bug report could bring more attention to it),
but don't blithely revert it.

Vlad seems to have done a lot of research on this, and it may well be a
bug that both xorg and gtk+ developers need to fix.

Moving forward, Vlad, would you please open a bug report with all of
the information you collected? That way we may track the issue and see
how widespread it is among our developers/users. George, is the latest
gtk+2 required for any of the updates you are working on? If not, may
we leave it reverted until the bug is resolved? If so, we will figure
out how to proceed (e.g. GNOME devel might just go to a devel-gnome
branch).

Thanks all for keeping this (mostly) civil. ;)

-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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page