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

Re: RC severity for Python 2.6 related bugs



OoO Vers la fin de l'après-midi du dimanche 28 février 2010, vers 16:46,
Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> disait :

>> It would be far  easier to let Python 2.6 be the  default, then file (or
>> upgrade) serious  bugs and solve them in  a week or two.

> Yeah sure, let’s knowingly break dozens of packages by switching instead
> of fixing them before and make it painless for users.

Sorry,  I really don't  see any  relation between  FTBFS and  breaking a
package. I don't  have any handy stat to support my  claims (and I don't
maintain  enough  Python  packages  to  turn this  affirmation  into  an
universal one), but  there are packages that fail  to build from sources
because they are not able to run unittests but work fine with Python 2.6
as default. Therefore, we get RC bugs for packages that build fine (with
current default Python) and run fine (with all supported Python).

I also tend to  believe that there are a lot of  packages that will just
fail to run  with Python 2.6 but will have no  problem to build, because
for  most packages,  building  just means  to  copy files  in the  right
location. The later we switch to  Python 2.6, the more difficult it will
be to catch those bugs.
-- 
NON-FLAMMABLE, IS NOT A CHALLENGE
NON-FLAMMABLE, IS NOT A CHALLENGE
NON-FLAMMABLE, IS NOT A CHALLENGE
-+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode BABF13

Attachment: pgpOaTPWmre5l.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: