zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. micw+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-06-06 19:56:05
I think it's not the one to blame who broke this but those who implemented everything all the time without adding any tests. Xorg has quite a large codebase but almost no automated tests.
replies(1): >>cwillu+Mk
2. cwillu+Mk[view] [source] 2025-06-06 22:33:26
>>micw+(OP)
So we agree that the maintainer is at fault: he wanted to change things and not have to thoroughly test his changes by doing the boring work of adding test coverage to the modified area.
replies(1): >>bmacho+18k
◧◩
3. bmacho+18k[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-06-15 11:31:56
>>cwillu+Mk
There is no arguing about that, the maintainer made a mistake. (Among other people, and it was insignificant anyway.)

So now that we agree on this, what now? How exactly does

  > does not give a warm fuzzy feeling about the author of the at-fault patch leading a fork.
follow? E.g. do you think that none of the Wayland developers ever made any mistakes?
[go to top]