The future of "rawhide" (was [Fwd: Re: "What is the Fedora Project?"])

[Tomas Mraz]

On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:02 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: 
> On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 10:55 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > So to make this a reality, we need to ensure that whatever is in rawhide
> > has a *>=* ENVR than anything in the other trees.  So I assume that when
> > submitting a bodhi update, bodhi would check rawhide and ensure that
> > whatever you were about to submit to 13-pending was <= whatever was in
> > rawhide.  Otherwise we'd get into a great big mess of not being able to
> > update to rawhide packages because whatever was in 13-pending was
> > 'newer' than rawhide.  Right?
> > 
> > We should have this anyway just to help upgradability between distros;
> > bodhi should not allow a package to be added to an update if it's a
> > "newer" ENVR than that same package in any of the "newer" distros. 
> 
> Yes, but it may happen before the bodhi stage, when we get autoqa
> working on post-build tests.  This kind of check could happen at SCM
> commit time, package build time, or finally bodhi push time.  Seems
> reasonable that we'd want to catch it as early as possible, but that
> does force people to work on rawhide first, then work on the pending
> release which may be under critical time pressure.  Certainly something
> to discuss.  Catching it at bodhi time seems too late.
We could allow adding numbers after the dist tag in release for this
purpose. And if the fixed package would upgrade to a newer upstream
version it should not be too big hassle to build it in the rawhide tree
first.

-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb