On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:10 AM, John Ellson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm more concerned that the failed batching process: > > a) failed because of checks that should have been done much earlier > in the process. > > b) left the web pages in an inaccurate and inconsistent state. >
yeah, it's "not pretty", registration wise. theoretically, name collision checks should already have been handled by gar. Just goes to show, that it's Not A Good Idea, to put 100% confidence in a single automated process. No process is 100% bug free. For QA purposes, it's a benefit to have 2 independant checks. in smaller batches of 1 or two packages, it's easy for me to re-register the "old" versions. For this huge thing, it's a considerable chunk of work. If there isnt going to be a quick (day or two) moving forward, then I will spend the time to de-rev the registrations. Otherwise, it seems simplest for me to just wait for the update and push the batch through. Which way would you recommend we go? _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
