I am not following anymore... So there is a new pre-release powertop that would replace old one.... We are very kind and want to make sure QA can still use the old one? Or are we not sure about the new one and want to keep the old one just in case?
QA should use the new version anyways, that is how we can find bugs, no? This whole talk about forking is also confusing. Can we move on please. We had lots of components submitted and accepted and used in pre-release state. If powertop 2.0 is completely broken, that is a different story, but from what I understand, it is not, we just want to make life easier for QA and make our life harder along the way.. Anas On 11 Jan 2011, at 17:08, Alexander Kanevskiy wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 1/11/2011 2:30 AM, Alexander Kanevskiy wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Selbak, Rolla N >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 1/10/11 9:27 PM, "Zhu, Peter J"<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:23 PM >>>>>> To: Zhu, Peter J >>>>>> Cc: Selbak, Rolla N; [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [meego-commits] 11716: Changes to Trunk:Testing/powertop >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/10/2011 7:06 PM, Zhu, Peter J wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why fork two powertop? We never fork CORE packages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For powertop, I don't understand we need old top if you would like >>>>> >>>>> new >>>>>> >>>>>> features of latest powertop >>>>>> >>>>>> Rolla suggested it for one release as a transition, just in case there >>>>>> are bugs with the new code...... >>>>> >>>>> New version always might have bugs. Please just use new version or hold >>>>> on until new version is good enough. >>>> >>>> I already talked to Arjan about this in length. >>>> >>>> Please accept this Peter. >>>> >>>> Forking is because the new powertop is a complete re-engineering of >>>> powertop, and is in Beta stages, which for our purposes is good enough. >>>> >>>> Keeping the old powertop around is for QA since they might need it for >>>> diagnostics, and I don't want to hinder their process (they're already >>>> pressured enough). >>> >>> It might be better to do it in a way how old compat packages are done >>> e.g. in Fedora >>> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name >>> >>> So, in that way powertop package would be updated to 2.x-beta, and new >>> package powertop1 as a temporary until we satisfied with 2.x >> >> a whole new package for one week? > > As I saw discussion above, this "temporary" solution with older > version would be around not for one week, but longer. > Otherwise, if in one week we can make sure that new version works > fine, why this testing can't be done in corresponding devel:* project > ? > >> do you know how much paperwork that involves in this project?? > > -- > br, Alexander Kanevskiy > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-packaging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging _______________________________________________ MeeGo-packaging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
