From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:49:09 -0500

On 6/14/2010 7:44 AM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
>
>> It is a volunteer effort, but the discussion of the move to EABI has been
>> happening for many months. To show up and complain after the fact that
>> *someone else* didn't test it, when you could've done so can seem very much
>> like simple whining.
>>
>>
>> It honestly doesn't matter how many people "rely" on current builds working
>> - they know the risks. If they choose to accept them, they can deal with
>> broken builds or simply not update once they've found one that works well
>> for them. "People rely on them" is no reason to halt advancement of the
>> project just because the core maintainer for the D2 isn't around very often.
>>
>>
> That is utter crap! Sure that is an acceptable stance when the change
> is an arbitrary thing, but when it is hardware specific changes (which
> changing compiler sure as hell is) then this excuse is absolutly not
> acceptable.
>
This doesn't really address either of my points. I made a general
statement about whether that's a good reason to prevent changes, not a
statement about this change in specific.

I do not disagree, at all, that this change shouldn't have been applied
to the D2 simply because it didn't *need* to be applied to the D2
without testing. That doesn't change the fact that when changes might
need to be applied, "people depend on the current build" shouldn't be a
reason - people don't have to update, and people are aware it's
considered unstable.
Received on 2010-06-14