[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Canonical and Debian

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 08:55:17AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 01:10:43PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The primary question, I think, is whether one can be 100% sure whether a
> > bug that results in an FTBFS on only one out of eleven platforms will
> > not have any effect whatsoever on another platform.
> Portability bugs are bugs, and generally worth fixing, but we really ought
> to be giving higher priority to bugs that are known to have real effects on
> users, don't you think?
> > Usually, the answer to that one is "no, you can't be sure". FTBFS bugs
> > that occur on only one platform are rare, very rare; most build failures
> > are mistakes in packaging (which usually have effect on all
> > architectures, rather than just one) or things such as incorrect
> > assumptions regarding char signedness or word length, that have effect
> > on all big endian or 64-bit platforms. Of course, these usually result
> > in runtime errors rather than compile time ones.
> And various of those bugs, when they are *known* to imply runtime brokenness
> on release architectures, should be regarded as release-critical; but that's
> not really generalizable to "all porting bugs".

We are really saying the same thing here. I'm saying "you shouldn't
generalize; portability bugs can be RC even if they don't have an impact
on more popular platforms", while you are saying "you shouldn't
generalize; portability bugs can be not RC if they don't have an impact
on more popular platforms".

While my emphasis is different, it really is the same message ;-)

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: