On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 1:33 PM Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 20:22 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > Let's do this the other way around and be react based on facts and not > > speculations. > > Let's change the policy for a year for selected packages as I > > outlined, monitor bugs and after a year see response times, affected > > users and if downstream patches are accumulated. Then we can decide if > > we need to patch upstream packages. > > If we need to patch upstream package anyway, not follow upstream > > policy and not accepting input for various of permutations and > > architecture from all users, this discussion is nearly void. > > > ...and for how long did you exactly ignore the standing policy that > suddenly we need a new testing period? How about we do the opposite > and you prove a *single* bug found downstream using this method so far?
Wouldn't the flip side of this be demonstrating that this has actually caused issues? If following upstream discovers no bugs and also causes no issues, why not leave it to maintainer discretion? I'm not talking about hypothetical issues. I'm talking about specific issues with this specific example, that supposedly has already done all the testing necessary... -- Rich
