On 11/16/19 4:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > More precisely, this is in context of dependency corrections. There is > no need to go through stabilization to restrict too broad dependency > specifications, while stable users hit the issue for the next two > months. >
The word "dependency" doesn't appear on that page before the line that I have a problem with. I'm not arguing against common sense: if you need to fix something that's completely broken in a stable ebuild and if that fix requires a new revision, then do a new (straight to stable) revision. However, that's a rare situation, and the bullet point doesn't make it clear that it's referring to a specific rare situation that should be ignored 99% of the time in favor of the first bullet point. To make matters worse, the fact that you can push commits straight-to-stable to fix a bad issue in the stable tree is completely independent of whether or not you make a new revision. You could push an entirely new version with the same goal. So the fact that the exception to the rule appears as a bullet point on the "ebuild revisions" page only sows further confusion. When people pull up that page, that want a simple heuristic to follow, not a legal document that they have to decode for half an hour before they can fix a bug.
