I'm not sure I like that idea, because then we are propagating packages that do
not build and/or check (even though there's a big fat warning when you load
them).
Also I don't like the idea of modifying the build system so close to the
release, and I don't have a lot of time to do that. We
If it is total failure, we could consider having an empty package just
saying does not work or something when loaded. Not sure that is great, but
at least it tells people the problem.
If you put on the release hat, the package shouldn't get released if we
know it doesn't work. It is preferable
Yes, this is part of a larger problem we need to think about.
I marked several packages as deprecated. In each case, the package has not
built successfully (and propagated) in some time. So the deprecation message
will not propagate to the end user, and the special landing page text will not
On 10/05/2015 05:45 PM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
I'm not sure I like that idea, because then we are propagating packages that do
not build and/or check (even though there's a big fat warning when you load
them).
Right but if the package was passing build and check, there wouldn't be
much reason
