Yaroslav Halchenko <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, 05 Feb 2019, Ole Streicher wrote: >> "Rebecca N. Palmer" <[email protected]> writes: >> > Has anyone checked whether this would break pandas' reverse dependencies? > >> I didn't yet. I just tried to update the packaging to 0.24, which >> however has a number of test failures, which would need to be discussed >> with upstream first. > > if not sever - I guess could be patched to be skipped for now and then > patches picked up to address them? or it was too many/too deep?
If you want: please do it as you like. My own workflow is to first discuss all failures with upstream, especially when I can't estimate the impact - sometimes it may be even fault of the package. There were about ten failures, which makes this already quite an effort. Especially since I did not work closely with upstream so far (so I don't know them well, and they don't know me) -- this communication should IMO be done by the regular maintainer. And, as I wrote, the package rules are a bit complicated, so I don't want to touch them before they are simplified (which would add more efforts on top of that). Bringing the other stuff to gbp standards (pristine-tar etc.) even more. And it also does not solve the problem that updating can introduce regressions in reverse dependencies, which is not the best thing we can do just before freeze. But finally you are the maintainer, if you think that updating is the way to go, just do it ;-) Best regards Ole
