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

Re: Multi-arch branches

On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 21:41:10 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Possible bugs can easily be found, and then fixed, by exposing packages to…
> > users. Experimental also means only people pulling it will be exposed to
> > it anyway.
> +1

I don't have any problem with the random bug that escapes review,
regardless of it's severity. They can usually be fixed quickly.

I have a problem with merging unreviewed code, though, that among other
things might and do have design issues, as witnessed in the past. I also
have not seen Cyril jump to do any kind of code review during all this
time as quickly as he jumped to pester and with threats to NMU a new
*upstream release*, w/o having been involved with it at *all*, with
known issues, regardless of maintainer disapproval...

One of the many reasons this past year has been pretty distressful, to
be honest. :(

> I fixed more bugs in the branch because it has been in use in Ubuntu than
> bugs that have been found by Guillem's review.

I disagree, besides code cleanup and bug fixes there's also been design
issues spotted and fixed. Something user usage usually does not reveal.

> > > The code assumes 1.16.2 is the one with multiarch support, earlier
> > > versions will not trigger some stuff.
> > 
> > ACK.
> Actually, that's your mistake Guillem. The various maintainer scripts
> properly use 1.16.2~ for the comparison (and there 1.16.2~multiarch > 1.16.2~).
> But you introduced an inconsistency by using 1.16.2 without the tilde for
> --assert-multi-arch.  Anyone who has the code for --assert-multiarch has the
> full multiarch branch so it's perfectly sane to lower this minimal version.

> I used 1.16.2~ on purpose because we have users testing the multiarch branch
> out of the dpkg-test APT repository which has this kind of versioning.

And that's why that belongs in such branch, for master it does not
make sense because there's no such tag there anyway, I've been meaning
to remove the tildes before uploading the final 1.16.2 in any case.


Reply to: