Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in media-libs/freetype: freetype-2.4.11-r1.ebuild ChangeLog

["Diego Elio Pettenò" <flameeyes@flameeyes.eu>]

On 27/02/2013 18:10, hasufell wrote:
> a) if you break a provider on purpose, then you should feel
>  somehow responsible for the consumers and not just dump testing and
> fixing on your fellow devs

I'd say the only real mistake has been not keeping it masked to begin with.

Just so we're clear with everybody, I would suggest, the next time
somebody wants to introduce a disruptive change:

 1. commit it masked — this way even if it's going to mess up the whole
tree you won't be blamed;
 2. ask me for testing — this happened in this case, but (1) was missed;
 3. make sure you're around to keep the pieces.

I opened the bugs — I wasn't going to look into them any time soon,
mostly because I got another huge bunch of bugs already — I started
today, and after a while it became obvious (to hasufell) that many of
them came down to the same issue; now I know and I'm not opening bugs
for the same issue all over.

Another common one I found myself simply because I noticed it while
looking at the build log.

I don't see a big problem with 3. as Michał might not have reacted yet,
but it was not even 24 hours since he asked me to run the tinderbox. He
might have caught the cmake issue himself, I don't know.

So my final word is that yes, this was a screw up, no, not as big as it
transpire from here.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/