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

Re: 182 pending F11 stable updates. WTF?

Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 13:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
We've been trying to push F11 updates for a couple days now.
... but you still haven't updated fedora-release, so neither mock doesn't pick them up.

That's right, I wanted to make sure they hit mirrors OK before I
released a fedora-release with repo configuration pointing to them.  Of
course you're free to manually turn those repos on and test it out for

* Decouple cuttings DVDs from F11 development
I honestly don't understand what you're proposing here.  No DVD from the release?
No, I am proposing that rel-eng chooses a set of packages to build iso etc. from, while "updates" "rolls on".

Or differently: rel-eng composes the "Fedora" repo from those packages they choose, which "updates" continues, independently from rel-eng's activities.

 What do we have people download to get the release?
As before ... the only difference would be "Fedora" (i.e. the set of packages the DVDs etc. would have been built from) would be older than "updates" (and/or "Everything")

Which does nothing to help the upgrade and n-v-r case.
Only if "updates" is not activated upon installation.

 What do
we hand out at events?
Openly said, ... I would hand out netboot.img's, accompanied with a yum repository of "Everything" ... but that's a different topic.

* Implement rawhide/testing
Is this a full time thing, you always want a rawhide, and a
rawhide-testing, which is driven by bodhi?
I haven't thought about all details, but I am inclined to lean towards a "permanent rawhide-testing".

There would be times where it hardly would be used, but there can easily be times, when it would be heavily used (e.g. there currently is a proposal pending which would severely change perl's behavior (perl module search order and file system layout), with currently unclear outcome).

How would one choose to use it?

Similar to "updates-testing"
yum install --enable-repo=rawhide-testing "package-i-want-to-test"

 Why would anyone choose to use bodhi if
they were allowed to build directly into rawhide?
You mean to push a package to rawhide-testing instead of rawhide?

Primary reason: Because the maintainer is aware about his package containing some "nasty"/"adventurous"/"dangerous"/"experimental" etc. changes/bugfixes, with unclear outcome and him wanting to avoid destabilizing the distro.

Should we force the
use of bodhi during freezes, and make it optional otherwise?
IMO, maintainers need _one_ single package submission UI, which should be used on all occasional/in all phases of development.

ATM, this would mean making bodhi mandatory and to get rid of trac etc.


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