On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 9:37 PM, <hero...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > How about defining a QA workflow for introducing a new slot of a > library, such as "mask it and open a tracker bug until every individual > reverse dependencies are checked"? >
The problem with this is that it puts the onus on the person who wants to make forward progress (adding support for a new library version). That means that they have incentive to either not bother with the new library version (causing Gentoo to stagnate), or use hacks like giving the library a new name (which we have examples in the tree of). Now, perhaps a more balanced approach might be to mask it and give 15 days notice on -dev, and then it can be unmasked. Anybody who cares about the library can test the new version, and if necessary update their dependencies to use the previous slot only (and if 15 days isn't enough time they can just update the dep right away and then update it again after they get around to testing it). Those who don't want to have to deal with that can just define their slot dependencies explicitly so that this policy will never apply to them. In order for a QA policy to be effective it has to either be minimally intrusive, or make the cost of compliance lower than the cost of workarounds or benign neglect. People don't HAVE to maintain packages, after all... Rich
