Till Maas wrote:
It would be enough to only push the update that got enough testing and
all updates in newer releases to keep the upgrade path.
Yes. Pushing stuff to older releases later does not break upgrade paths, it
just annoys and confuses folks. Pushing stuff to older releases first is
Jesse Keating wrote:
We do separate testing per release, because each release is different.
Different library sets, different kernels, glibc, some different desktop
environments, etc... Assuming that testing on one release means that
it'll work on other releases is grossly irresponsible.
In
Thomas Spura wrote:
Why testing?
A maybe-broken update is better than a non-working programm isn't
it?
+1, broken dependency fixes should go stable ASAP.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 07:38:43AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
These requirements render the karma automatism useless for all branches
except F13, because the fedora-packager package in F12 was iirc pushed
automatically after it received enough testing. If this implies, that
Am Donnerstag, den 18.03.2010, 23:30 +0530 schrieb Rakesh Pandit:
On 18 March 2010 00:19, Branched Report wrote:
Compose started at Wed Mar 17 09:15:24 UTC 2010
linphone-2.1.1-4.fc12.i686 requires libortp.so.7
Thanks Quentin for looking into this and Jesse for importing. I have
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Spura
spur...@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
Why testing?
A maybe-broken update is better than a non-working programm isn't
it?
Because there are a significant number of people that will scream
bloody murder if people push packages directly to stable
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 13:34 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Thomas Spura
spur...@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
Why testing?
A maybe-broken update is better than a non-working programm isn't
it?
Because there are a significant number of people that will
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 01:36:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Both fedora-easy-karma and fedora-packager are breaking upgrade paths, this
inheritance problem is just another side effect of that. The packages have
to be pushed to stable either simultaneously or in decreasing release order.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 02:32:35AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I wrote:
Both fedora-easy-karma and fedora-packager are breaking upgrade paths,
this inheritance problem is just another side effect of that. The packages
have to be pushed to stable either simultaneously or in decreasing release
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 02:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I wrote:
Both fedora-easy-karma and fedora-packager are breaking upgrade paths,
this inheritance problem is just another side effect of that. The packages
have to be pushed to stable either simultaneously or in decreasing release
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:49:41PM +, Branched Report wrote:
fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch requires
fedora-packager = 0:0.4.0
This is unexpected behaviour of Fedora for me. Why is the package from
F12 automatically added to the F13 repo? The current
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 21:12:33 +0100,
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:49:41PM +, Branched Report wrote:
fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch requires
fedora-packager = 0:0.4.0
This is unexpected behaviour of Fedora for me.
Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:49:41PM +, Branched Report wrote:
fedora-easy-karma-0-0.3.20100306git00fc20aa.fc12.noarch requires
fedora-packager = 0:0.4.0
This is unexpected behaviour of Fedora for me. Why is the package from
F12 automatically added to the F13 repo? The
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
PS: The main cause for this kind of problems is people insisting on separate
testing per release. IMHO updates should go out to all releases at the same
time, based on the sum of the testing done for all of them, then we won't
have
Chris Adams wrote:
It shouldn't be based on the sum, as that would mean positives for one
release could override negatives for another.
That's kinda the whole point. Kinda because of course negatives should not
be ignored, but that's always true, even if the positives are for the same
15 matches
Mail list logo
