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

Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R



On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:15:38 +0200
Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote:

> On 2013-04-02 15:09:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Vincent Lefevre, le Tue 02 Apr 2013 14:52:35 +0200, a écrit :
> > > I disagree. If the freeze occurred only once (almost) all RC bugs
> > > were fixed,
> > 
> > Problem is: until you freeze, new RC bugs keep getting introduced.
> 
> But I would say, not many. Or RC bugs also apply to old versions
> of the package.

That is not how it actually works out. Policy changes are made which
require old packages to build with new flags, compilers and toolchain
packages get upgraded and introduce new failure modes, QA tools improve
and catch more corner cases. Those things no longer happen during a
freeze, so the bug count has a chance to go down.

Look at the graphs on bugs.debian.org - the RC count rises steadily
outside of a freeze.

> Moreover really new RC bugs are introduced on packages where
> upstream is active (since the version is new), so that they
> have a better chance to be fixed quickly.

Again, you're missing the whole inter-dependency issue. A new piece of
software can introduce / reveal bugs in previously working software. Or
a previously working piece of software can start to fail because
hardware has moved on and is able to push more data through the
software than previously envisaged leading to complex threading /
timing issues.

Even during a freeze, there are many many RC bugs opened for the first
time and a lot of those are not in packages which have changed since
the freeze began.

No package is an island.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpfP353_Msyy.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: