On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:59:36PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org>wrote: > > Finding that something that didn't build, hasn't been changed and still > > doesn't build isn't terribly random :) We could do better, but > > introducing more mass rebuilds as part of the release cycle isn't going > > to make things significantly better when we're already failing to deal > > with the fallout from the mass rebuilds we *do* carry out. Fixing this > > is a process issue rather than one that's fixed by having FESCO mandate > > a mass rebuild after every change that could conceivably cause breakage. > > > > > If a mass rebuild causes breakage its a problem which ever way you look at > it, the package will eventually be rebuilt and cause the breakage, in my > opinion your better off doing that in a controlled manner rather than > sweeping it under the carpet and hoping no one will notice.
I agree, but if we're failing to deal with FTBFS with the number of mass rebuilds we currently have, introducing more mass rebuilds doesn't magically make things better. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
