On 02/10/2014 12:02 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote: >> heh,heh,heh, sip4-tqt FTBFS, python-tqt FTBFS, tdeutils FTBFS, >> >etc... I feel your pain... and share the bags under your eyes :-) > The point being that FTBFS patches are being pushed lately without > everybody having an opportunity to test. "Works for me" is not a > good motto. I understand that somebody needs a patch to avoid > FTBFS. I get that. We all do. Yet FTBFS patches should be tested by > everybody involved. > > Darrell +1 I know I get caught with the real-world taking a day or two of time away from getting RC1 ready to freeze, but we really should be allowing at least that long for testing before pushing at this point. Like the .la -> .so push, great move forward, but we should get a sign-off from each of the active builders before pushing, or at least send a "I am about to push X that might break Y, please test.." -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.