Hi,
Well, the subject is maybe a bit alarming, don't worry just yet :-)
I wanted to get some maintainer's opinion about what I just did, which
doesn't bother me much, but might be something for which consensus ends up
being "don't do that, ever!" :
I had forgot to commit a patch into CVS for synergy's FC-3 branch, and
just committed the exact same files (except for that missing patch) to all
FC-3, FC-4 and devel branches, tagged them and requested builds.
Obviously, the FC-3 build immediately failed upon trying to build the
source rpm, whereas the two others were going to build fine.
The typical thing to do here would have been to bump the release and ask
for a new build. But that would have meant bump the FC-4 and devel
releases too to keep them in order (since I used "1%{?dist}" for all
three), for nothing... so I tried something else.
I manually tagged the FC-3 branch where the patch was now included as
*-1_1_fc3 (where it previously was *-1_fc3) without actually changing the
release nor anything else in the spec file, and asked plague to rebuild
that new branch.
I don't really know the implications of such a "trickery", other than the
fact that looking at the tags of the FC-3 branch, one will think that a
"1.1%{?dist}" release will have existed while this isn't he case. For me,
this isn't much of a problem, since it avoided trying to cancel the other
jobs, bumping releases, committing changes that aren't, asking for new
builds... all things which would have been "for nothing".
So... basically, I was just curious to know what the other maintainers
thought of this, if it was something that should be banned, or if it could
be acceptable in such circumstances. I personally don't really know, which
is why I'm asking.
Matthias
--
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) - Linux kernel 2.6.12-1.1398_FC4
Load : 0.15 0.18 0.12
