+--On 29 juin 2016 13:15:44 +0200 Michelle Sullivan <miche...@sorbs.net> wrote: | Baptiste Daroussin wrote: |> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: |>> |>> And I do think we should, opposite to what you are proposing, make the |>> committer spend extra time for high-profile ports that entail sweeping |>> changes to chase down the breaking change to, say, a library port. |>> |> I might have been not explicit enough, of course any changes should be |> tested, and of course high profile ports breaking means special |> attention and prevent the sweeping change to actually happen. |> | Sorry I think you're wrong at this point. | | Define "high profile" ... Some library port that other obscure ports are | dependent on..? What say postgresql94-client or perhaps p5-Bucardo... | something that only a few ports (if any) rely on, yet would be a massive | problem for a lot of production servers/services if they were suddenly | and quietly broken...
High profile is gmake, gettext, or libpng, those important things. -- Mathieu Arnold
pgpTEx9XWiGbt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
