CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

[Martin Gräßlin]

Am 14. Januar 2017 00:58:55 MEZ schrieb Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at>:
>Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
>> It is not true that users will be no worse off. An application could
>> increase the dependency of libfoo to 1.3 and add code using a feature
>that
>> was broken in 1.2. If you then revert the version bump, you get code
>that
>> uses the new feature but allows libfoo 1.2, where it's broken. Users
>are
>> now worse off than if you had stuck to the old version.
>
>Sure, that can happen (that the code will build just fine against the
>old 
>library, but not actually run properly), but that is not the common
>case. 
>The common case is that the new library version is used for an API
>addition, 
>and that reverting the dependency bump in the application will
>necessarily 
>also revert the application code using the new library API (because 
>otherwise it won't build) and restore the known state from the previous
>
>release of the application. (This can reintroduce bugs, but only ones
>which 
>were already in the previous release.) As I understand it, this is
>exactly 
>the situation we are in with KWin and xkbcommon now

And you understand KWin? You know why it was added and how many follow up changes depend on it? 

Then you know more than I do! Over the last week's the input code got refactored and is still being refactored. Good luck getting this reverted without breaking other things. 

That's the point where I do heavily disagree with your thinking. You have no idea about the software in question. And you cannot have it. So trust the people knowing it!