Package EVR problems in Fedora 2007-10-31

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 11:49 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:02:00 +0100
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at 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.
... yes, testing == scratch, volatile ... potential junk, you're on your
own, use at your risk.

> > >   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.
I realize you don't want to discuss but to "pull your cart through",
Sarge - sad, ...

Ralf