CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

[Martin Gräßlin]

Am 2017-01-12 15:28, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>> You know what happens when we ifdef the version of dependencies? 
>> Thinks
>> break in distributions. They ignore the optional dependency and ship
>> with the older one. Which results in issues we upstream developers 
>> have
>> to care about. The quality of our product goes down and users complain
>> about the lousy quality of plasma and the distribution.
> 
> What will happen now is that they will revert your commits that require 
> the
> unavailable version of the library. It is just more work for us 
> packagers
> (instead of one upstream developer maintaining a simple #ifdef, every 
> distro
> will have to maintain the reversion patch individually) and will not 
> change
> anything for what the users ultimately get (the output will likely be 
> bit-
> identical to what #ifdef would produce).

So you say you know better as the KWin maintainer what dependencies KWin 
needs.
That's awesome! Congratulations to becoming the new KWin maintainer.

If you don't want to be the KWin maintainer, then don't do such 
bullshit.

If you do nevertheless, my upstream position is GO FUCK YOURSELF! It 
will mean that I will directly close every bug report we get from Fedora 
with RESOLVED DOWNSTREAM, "Cannot investigate, Fedora patched 
dependencies out, anything might be broken".

This idea of yours is utter bullshit, you make our work more difficult.

And yes I'm aware that this probably violates the CoC of KDE. I don't 
care. If that's a problem to anyone, go kick me out.

Cheers
Martin