2011/9/20 Miloslav Trmač <m...@volny.cz>: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:52:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>> >What the maintainers could have done is not upload a package that breaks >>> >binary compatibility into a distribution that's attempting to stabalise >>> >for release. >>> >>> That's a way too simplistic view - It's simply that other processes >>> (upstream release cycles, upstream release processes, package >>> maintainer's time slots, etc.) are not in sync with Fedora's cycles >>> and that Fedora's wanna-be QA's delay slots are severely adding to >>> the already existing problems. >> >> You're not obliged to upload the latest upstream. It's very practical to >> simply not do so. > > So when _is_ a good time to do binary-incompatible changes to libraries? > > * It's not after beta freeze, because they are unwanted at that time > > * It's not 14 days before beta freeze, because they won't get out of > updates-testing in time > > * It's not 14 days + 3 (4?) weeks before beta freeze - even if the > library gets out of updates-testing in time, its users may not be > rebuilt because the maintainer is on vacation. > > * What if there are two layers of users that need to be rebuilt? > > The delays just pile one upon another...
You can update rawhide at any time and accomplish that work without delays. Then it shows up in the next Fedora version. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
