On 06/24/2011 12:55 PM, Philip Brown wrote:
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. ::.
I'm assuming that the ImageMagic fix is small and that we should have a
new set of packages in a few days, but Dago didn't say when he was going
to be back.
I'm not even so worried about the web pages on this occasion. It just
seems to me that some scripts need to be fixed so that web updates are
atomic and only happen if batching is successful.
For this release of graphviz, I suggest just waiting a few days, and re
batch.
Thanks
john
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
.:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
