On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> I view this as entirely equivalent to having a rule about not breaking
> trunk in version control: I don't know anyone who seriously argues that
> breaking a project compile is a good thing. Breaking the OS should be
> culturally identical - t
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 13:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> If something fails to COMPILE, this actually hinders development. In fact,
> I'm one of the first ones to yell if package builds in Rawhide are broken
> (due to some dependency breakage or whatever). Something failing to RUN is a
> wholely
Alex Hudson wrote:
> I view this as entirely equivalent to having a rule about not breaking
> trunk in version control: I don't know anyone who seriously argues that
> breaking a project compile is a good thing. Breaking the OS should be
> culturally identical - that it's a "development branch" or
(I'm really glad this topic has come up - I think it's critically
important)
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 00:19 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> > Maybe there needs to be a classification for rawhide similar to the
> > karma system for updates-testing, but limited to just a set o
