blanket portmgr approval vs. non-fixing changes

[Michelle Sullivan]

Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
>>
>> And I do think we should, opposite to what you are proposing, make the
>> committer spend extra time for high-profile ports that entail sweeping
>> changes to chase down the breaking change to, say, a library port.
>>
> I might have been not explicit enough, of course any changes should be tested,
> and of course high profile ports breaking means special attention and prevent
> the sweeping change to actually happen.
>
Sorry I think you're wrong at this point.

Define "high profile" ... Some library port that other obscure ports are 
dependent on..?  What say postgresql94-client or perhaps p5-Bucardo... 
something that only a few ports (if any) rely on, yet would be a massive 
problem for a lot of production servers/services if they were suddenly 
and quietly broken...

It's an all or nothing thing, you either ensure your sweeping changes 
don't break anything, or don't care about anything and just put out an 
announcement that you made the change.  Selecting some random list of 
what you consider should not be broken (or should be fixed first) based 
on some random list of what you think is important is a short sighted 
and unprofessional methodology as it creates more uncertainty and 
confusion..

My opinion, feel free to ignore as usual.

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/