On 02/10/2011 11:03 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > On Thursday 10 February 2011 21:49:53 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: >> Il giorno gio, 10/02/2011 alle 14.08 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto: >>> Hey, here's an idea. Before you go making big masks like this for >>> packages >>> several people depend on, maybe try looking for a maintainer. >> >> That is *exactly* what these masks are. And you should know there is >> *no* "five minutes fix". > > Hey come on. If you really wanted to find a maintainer, you'd have given me > the time to check back with upstream instead of just refusing a revert. > > Packages oscillating in and out of package mask (however broken) is also not > nice for the user. >
I'm not sure if you understand opensync then, there's 3-4 series in tree and mostly not compatible with each other: 0.22, 0.36, 0.39 and latest being live 9999. What you suggested about reverting would have exposed all of them to users again. Fixing latest is *not* enough. Instead you should unmask what you *have fixed* per series (version). - Samuli
