Re: pkgsrc stability vs. updates

[Jason Bacon <jtocino%gmx.com@localhost>]

On 3/7/25 15:58, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Another one that I think is a too-high requirement is what dreckly
> claims to aim for - no regressions on any platforms in the CI.
> Because at least I for one don't have the setup to test or fix seven
> or more operating systems, and I don't know anyone else who has (with
> perhaps the exception of Jonathan). CI is nice in telling you when
> something breaks, but it's bad for actually fixing stuff because you
> can just submit "guess-fixes" and wait for the next run to tell you if
> it fixed the problem. This is highly inefficient.

I think this is more of a goal than a requirement.  There will
undoubtedly be times when we have to bend on it and times when a
regression is undetected by CI.  The important thing is, we identify the
vast majority of regressions before they are committed, and delay the
commit until they are addressed: either fixed, or there is general
agreement that an exception can be made in this case (e.g. I would
personally bless a regression in any bioinformatics package on any
32-bit platform or EOL operating system).

The regressions need to be fixed either way.  The question is do we
commit before or after they're fixed.  If we routinely commit before,
then end-users suffer too much breakage and decide to look for a better
way to deploy software.

--
Life is a game.  Play hard.  Play fair.  Have fun.