On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Kai-Uwe <ku.b-l...@gmx.de> wrote: > Am 14.01.2017 um 08:29 schrieb Martin Gräßlin: >> Am 14. Januar 2017 00:58:55 MEZ schrieb Kevin Kofler >> <kevin.kof...@chello.at>: >>> The common case is that the new library version is used for an API >>> addition, >>> and that reverting the dependency bump in the application will >>> necessarily >>> also revert the application code using the new library API (because >>> otherwise it won't build) and restore the known state from the previous >>> release of the application. (This can reintroduce bugs, but only ones >>> which >>> were already in the previous release.) As I understand it, this is >>> exactly >>> the situation we are in with KWin and xkbcommon now >> >> And you understand KWin? You know why it was added and how many follow up >> changes depend on it? >> >> Then you know more than I do! Over the last week's the input code got >> refactored and is still being refactored. Good luck getting this reverted >> without breaking other things. >> >> That's the point where I do heavily disagree with your thinking. You have no >> idea about the software in question. And you cannot have it. So trust the >> people knowing it! > > Modifications of distributors can be seen for various projects in the > past and today. You both appear to have reached a point beyond > consensus. I think this is respectable. The actual thread shows how much > at least one party is strongly distracted from feeling well with the > situation. At least I read it from your emails. > > The perhaps simplest thing for the upstream maintainer, would be to > request the distributor to call his version of the software a __fork__. > That should typically cover slightly renaming, to make the fork > distinguishable for end users, take over responsibility for bug reports > and do separate maintenance. That constellation might help, to not be > bound and in conflict around the issue until it is resolved. (A later > reunification can be requested any time one party wishes. A parallel > reasonably minor modified version of the original can still be shipped > with a suitable distribution version and cooperation can easier happen > with that.) > > Just an idea to concentrate on more productive things for the joy of coding.
Please split that off into a separate thread, it's totally separate to this matter and is dragging it very quickly in totally-off-topic territory. > > Kai-Uwe Thanks