On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 22:46 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > That's a false positive, because dist-f9-updates-testing is not taken > into account. Hrm, it both is and isn't. It's plausible that somebody at one time installed F8 testing updates, and then upgraded to F9 + updates, but without F9 updates-testing. However, it's more plausible that if they were using updates-testing on F8 that they would upgrade to F9 + updates + updates-testing. I still think it's worth noting these occurrences when they happen. That said, it might also be worth doing this in two runs. One that takes the view of F8, F8-updates, f9-updates and another than takes the view of F8-updates-testing, F9-updates-testing. More things to play with when I get back from OLS. Another thought I had was that instead of listing the owners of packages, we could actually list the person whom built the offending E:N-V-R breaker. This is likely more interesting information anyway since the owner can change per branch and the owner often isn't the person doing the build anyway. I'll be looking to wire that up since the builder is in the data set I get back from koji in the initial query set. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
Description: This is a digitally signed message part