On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 13:41 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On 1/3/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 January 2007 14:04, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > And it would be nice (as I said already). But I'd already be glad if we
> > > could have the F7TEST3 to F7 way.
> >
> > Yes, F7T3 to F7 would be nice, but as you said, sometimes we screw up. And if
> > we screw up, would you rather we introduce epoch, or roll back the version?
> > If we come up with a hard and fast rule that T3 must be upgradable to Final,
> > that has some pretty serious QA implications, and the QA team (I'm looking at
> > you Will) needs to have a say in that.
> >
>
> T[1-3] and rawhide ain't grandma's Linux, those expecting it not to
> break shouldn't be using it.
I refuse to buy arguments like this. We want our users to at least have
an upgrade path and if the only thing preventing this is certain people
being afraid of bumping a superficial number (the Epoch) and doing
things like rolling back version numbers then, perhaps, our package
maintenance procedures needs to be reconsidered.
(Then again, as I noted in my other mail, perhaps I don't fully
understand why one would ever roll back a version number (rather than
bumping the Epoch) knowing it will break upgrade paths.)
David
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list
fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
