[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Package EVR problems in Fedora 2007-10-31

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:02:00 +0100
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 freenet de> wrote:

> > That's simply because you're failing to consider that things which
> > are in testing have (high) potential to make it into stable.  
> That's "updates < testing" ... a necessary condition, because
> otherwise you won't be able to install a package from "testing".

And if you make the next logical leap, F7-updates < F8(-updates).  So
your F7-updates-testing build had better have a lower nevra than that
which is either going into f8-updates(-testing), or already released on
F8 in some way.

> >   It would be
> > better for maintainers to fix nevra issues while the build is still
> > in testing than to wait until it hits updates.  
> Are you saying packages in "testing" automatically hit "updates"?

No, only if a maintainer chooses such and certain requirements happen,
like karma points reaching a threshold.

> This would be the next design flaw. This renders "testing" further
> useless.
> I sense we seemingly we have a basic divergence on the purpose of
> testing. 
> You seem to understand it as a "delay queue" for updates, giving some
> people a chance to check packages and withdraw them when they feel
> they need to.
> I understand "testing" as "auxiliary repo" taking candidate packages
> for "updates", which generally should only be pushed by request, not
> "by timeout" nor by "no receiving complaints".

It's not a me or you thing.  This seems to be a you vs the rest of the
maintainers thing.

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]