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?
Description: PGP signature