Comment 117 for bug 1267393

@mterry,

I agree with doko and slangasek that we should block migration if APIs fail and I particularly like pitti's comment in 99.

Also, you said: "I get that you're saying it's good because we don't have to waste security-update-time fixing reverse-depends." The upstream Go community as a whole is less concerned about breaking consumers at this point in time and they haven't proven themselves wrt API stability. It is for that reason that we really need this. While it is the convention to change the package name, I very much prefer we not rely on this while the Go community (including Debian) is still figuring all this out. I really don't want to see decreasing Ubuntu developer or security update velocity when there is lurking bug for someone's next upload to ftbfs.

"Am I being too carefree? Do Go library minor updates tend to break builds more often than C or Python libraries?" I believe so, yes. A very popular Go model is to take a git snapshot from somewhere and use it, with no 'minor update' releases. Case in point, 10 out of the 11 dependencies of juju-core from this MIR use this model.