On 01/29/2013 05:20 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Marcela Mašláňová <mmasl...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 01/25/2013 12:17 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 23:03 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
It's best to rip the bandage of this in one release.
The churn from this should have been more or less covered when we
implement biosdevname so the fallout from this change should be minimal
if any...
I see the 's' word in there ;)
That's always the hope, and then we meet the cold reality, where someone
just patched 'em1' into everything and hoped that was good enough. But
sure, 'damn the torpedoes' is a viable approach too. I guess I was just
kind of hoping F19 would be a release without yet more churn in the core
system where we could try and stabilize things a bit.
I agree. The scope says no impact, but who knows how many packages depend on
hardcoded names.
It's not only "em1" mistakenly hard-coded in applications; it's user's
saved configuration, scripts etc., where often there is no practical
alternative to "hard-coding".
Mirek
For the first how many users did you notice complaining about the
biosdevice name change, secondly are you seriously saying that if I have
a local script as in nothing we ship we just hold the presses and
nothing in the project can be moved forward unless it's backward
compatible to my script? That's just nonsense.
It's my responsibility to read the release notes or otherwise keep
myself informed of any changes and keep *my* scripts updated but it's
the project responsability to try to keep anything we ship from breaking
as an result of any changes we make.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
