On 4 October 2013 17:03, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> but even what you're describing
> above won't cover _everything_, and this is mostly what I'm saying.
>
Yeh, its a given that it won't cover /all/ scenarios. Its obviously not
intended to /replace/ arch testers, just supplementary context.
On 10/3/13 3:30 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> Now, if you were to see "no people have successfully built combination X",
> that in itself is interesting, even if you don't have actual failure
> reports of that combination.
>
> Also, if "5 testers tested this combination and nothing bad happened" is
>
On 4 October 2013 05:11, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> Even then, no amount of testing guarantees lack of problems.
Indeed, but which is a better assurance, "5 testers tested this combination
and nothing bad happened", or "5000 people tested this combination and
nothing bad happened".
Now, if y
On 10/1/13 2:12 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> So if you're relying on the presence of filed bugs to give some sort of
> coverage metric, you're going to be out of luck from time to time. For
> instance, that fun bug where stabilising a version of libraw broke the
> things depending upon it that were al
On 3 October 2013 05:43, yac wrote:
> I'd be cautious about involving users in this as it very often happens
> to myself that something breaks, I get mad and then figure it was my
> own fault (eg. messing with cflags I shouldn't mess with)
>
That does happen from time to time on the CPAN Testers
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/02/2013 06:43 PM, yac wrote:
>> So if you're relying on the presence of filed bugs to give some
>> sort of coverage metric, you're going to be out of luck from time
>> to time. For instance, that fun bug where stabilising a version
>> of libraw b
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:12:00 +1300
Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 08:51, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> > I agree, but I think the problem is basically that many people
> > consider it impossible for "newer" to ever be shitty.
> >
> > Even if they are intimately familiar with the details of a p
On 2 October 2013 08:51, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I agree, but I think the problem is basically that many people
> consider it impossible for "newer" to ever be shitty.
>
> Even if they are intimately familiar with the details of a package
> upstream they may still not be capable of determining what
hasufell wrote:
> No bump is better than a shitty bump imo.
I agree, but I think the problem is basically that many people
consider it impossible for "newer" to ever be shitty.
Even if they are intimately familiar with the details of a package
upstream they may still not be capable of determining
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:23:16 +0800
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 07:45 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> > due to technical issues with the robo-stable scripts.
>
> > due to technical issues with the robo-stable scripts.
>
> let me summarize my response as "WAT"
I call, and rais
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:41:03 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> Arch teams do not test them
When "arch teams" do not test them, there is something wrong with "arch
teams". Being a member of one, I assure you that is not what *I* do.
jer
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:58 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> Agreed. I was always told that it is up to the arch teams to test the
> reverse deps.
While I think this makes the most sense in general, I think
maintainers do have a role.
If some package has 75 reverse dependencies, and 1 of them tend
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:40:04AM +0200, Thomas Kahle wrote:
> On 09/29/2013 11:41 PM, hasufell wrote:
> > It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
> > remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing a
> > library, especially when this is a non-maintainer stab
On 09/30/2013 11:44 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 09:22 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 09/29/2013 10:41 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>> Arch teams do not test them, so this is the business of the
>>> maintainer or the dev who requested stabilization.
>>>
>
>> That is definitely not true. We always
On 09/30/2013 07:45 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> hasufell schrieb:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464536
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470554
>>
>> for the first bug:
>> net-libs/ortp media-libs/mediastreamer and net-voip/linphone
>> are from the same upstream
On 9/30/13 3:44 AM, hasufell wrote:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470554
> [...]
> for the second bug:
> we now have a stable net-libs/libosip that cannot be installed when
> you want to install stable net-libs/libeXosip... that is not a good
> spot. Those libraries again should have be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/30/2013 01:45 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> hasufell schrieb:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464536
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470554
>>
>> for the first bug: net-libs/ortp media-libs/mediastreamer and
>>
hasufell schrieb:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=464536
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470554
>
> for the first bug:
> net-libs/ortp media-libs/mediastreamer and net-voip/linphone
> are from the same upstream and actually have to be bumped and
> stabilized TOGETHER, because it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/30/2013 09:22 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 09/29/2013 10:41 PM, hasufell wrote:
>> Arch teams do not test them, so this is the business of the
>> maintainer or the dev who requested stabilization.
>>
>
> That is definitely not true. We alway
On 09/29/2013 10:41 PM, hasufell wrote:
> Arch teams do not test them, so this is the business of the maintainer
> or the dev who requested stabilization.
>
That is definitely not true. We always trained Arch Testers to test
reverse dependencies as well.
--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Lin
30.09.2013 01:41, hasufell пишет:
> Arch teams do not test them, so this is the business of the maintainer
> or the dev who requested stabilization.
>
I hope you are kidding, cause when i was joining to arch teams, i was
taught to test reverse dependencies of libraries.
Of course, maintainer sho
В Пн, 30/09/2013 в 00:54 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel пишет:
> Am Sonntag, 29. September 2013, 23:41:03 schrieb hasufell:
> > It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
> > remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing a
> > library, especially when this is a non-
On 9/29/13 7:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Even then, we won't get much more than compile testing, or whatever
> test suites the packages happen to come with.
That's right.
I think we can rely on the time packages spend in ~arch to catch the
issues that wouldn't come up with compile and test phase
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM, hasufell wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 12:54 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, 29. September 2013, 23:41:03 schrieb hasufell:
>>> It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
>>> remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/30/2013 12:54 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 29. September 2013, 23:41:03 schrieb hasufell:
>> It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
>> remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing a
>> l
Am Sonntag, 29. September 2013, 23:41:03 schrieb hasufell:
> It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
> remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing a
> library, especially when this is a non-maintainer stablereq.
>
> Arch teams do not test them, so this is
On 09/29/2013 11:41 PM, hasufell wrote:
> It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
> remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing a
> library, especially when this is a non-maintainer stablereq.
>
> Arch teams do not test them, so this is the business of th
On 9/29/13 2:41 PM, hasufell wrote:
> It seems this happens more frequently these days, so I'd like to
> remind people to check stable reverse deps before stabilizing a
> library, especially when this is a non-maintainer stablereq.
+1 to the reminder. It would be great to hear about specific examp
28 matches
Mail list logo
