On 28/10/10 21:47, Thierry Carrez wrote: > A few hours ago, during the UDS "Java Library Housekeeping" session, we > discussed the damage that was done during the Lucid and Maverick cycles > by introducing new versions of Java libraries late in the cycle. > > The problem is that our main Java stacks, and in particular Eucalyptus, > can break quite late in the cycle when one of those libraries in synced > or merged from Debian. <SNIP> > This would obviously be a soft freeze, so it doesn't prevent damage from > being done, but we hope to make it a bad practice and reduce the > problems we experienced over the last cycles. > > Comments ? > I entirely agree that *something* needs to be done. Having been a victim of dependencies changing from under me, sometimes in a cascade, with my work on Eucalyptus last cycle - I wasted significant time trying to locate the issue, and also wasted valuable upstream time to help create a resolution.
Currently, we don't have a notion of RFC'ing when developers want to modify (mainly sync / merge), and heavily relies upon interested parties being fortunate enough to 'see' the bug, before some pain is inflicted. One example of this was Bug #614981 [0]. This system, in my mind, doesn't scale. I would really like to hear James Page's thoughts on this subject, as he is undertaking some significant Java work this cycle in the server area. Kind Regards, Dave Walker [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/614981 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
