On 1/3/07, David Zeuthen <davidz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 15:04 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 January 2007 14:52, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something or maybe I just don't get it, but how can
> > rolling back version numbers *instead* of bumping another number (Epoch)
> > ever be considered a solution? Have we done this before, and if so, what
> > was the justification? Thanks.
>
> Yes, we've rolled back before. I don't have specific examples, but it
> happens. We've also flat out removed packages introduced during test times.
> Introducing epochs is ugly and will hang over the package forever, and every
> effort should be made to avoid it. Because we have the 'right' currently to
> not worry much about going from T1 to T2 or T2 to T3 or T3 to final, we have
> a way of preventing epoch.
Sorry to sound non-constructive, but can we please stop breaking upgrade
paths just because someone happens to think that "epochs is ugly" (left
over packages is much less of a problem). I'd like to go even further
and ask for our build system to enforce this rule. The justification is
that it's only a number, and this practice is bordering introducing bugs
by refactoring source code just because it's "less ugly" that way.
Please tell me where I can file a bug (I'm not exactly sure, I used the
vauge term "Build System" but is this in Bugzilla yet?) so this issue
won't be forgotten. Thanks.
David
This probably belongs on fedora-devel
-Mike
_______________________________________________
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
