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

Re: Do we want extras/testing/{4, 5} repos (was Re: Packaging review guidelines clarification)

On 2/18/06, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:
> I know, it doesn't work to well with update-testing in core -- but it's
> IMHO better then no testing at all.

If this policy goes in I'd want an established  loophole that allows
hot fix updates to fix brokenness that made it through the "testing"
timeout without comment and not just security updates.

And yo have to watch out for how this mandatory tree complicates the
building of other packages which depend on packages sitting in the
testing tree awaiting the timeout to expire.  If the buildsystem
automatically uses packages in this tree, then you'll have to have a
way to expidite packages out of this tree before the timeout if a
security hotfix for a depedant package needs to get released to keep
depchains clean.

If this tree is not automatically included in the buildsystem you'll
have to have some mechanism by which maintainers can request it be
included when they are doing a set of packages in a dependacy chain,
to avoid the mandatory timeout from getting in the way.

I'd like to see this implemented on a probational basis and then
re-evaluated to see if the timeout based testing tree is a net benefit
or a net hinderance.

The non-published scratch tree idea I think is good regardless of what
happens with a pre-release testing tree.

-jef"I am still working on my wtf is up with becoming a sponsers
draft..I haven't forgotten"spaleta

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