On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 07:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 06:15 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Josh Boyer wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 00:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:45 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>>>> Out of the previous report, the following packages have a build sitting > >>>>> in dist-fc7 that would fix the broken upgrade path. > >>>>> > >>>>> Maintainers, please review this and submit a f7-final tag request to > >>>>> rel-eng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx if these builds are suitable for Fedora 7 > >>>>> final! > >>>> All of my packages have been submitted the ordinary "make build" way > >>>> either through plague or koji and are consistent in CVS. I don't > >>>> consider it my job to sort out this broken release policy. > >>> Ok. Then you can deal with bug reports on your packages if/when users > >>> try to upgrade and they don't work. > >> IMNSHO broken upgrades paths should be treated as release blockers. If > >> package maintainers or others involved don't want to follow the process > >> outlined and fix the packages, they should be pulled off before release. > > > > Pulled off how? They are already broken... > > Pull off the repository for Fedora 7 release. Please consider upgrade How does that fix the upgrade path? It's no better than having an existing package with NVR less than FC/FE-6 functionally... What good does that do? > paths as release blockers. It is not just a matter of good quality > packages. There will be security issues if packages are not updated > properly. If you haven't been able to make this decision over IRC you > can always discuss it on list. It was mostly because we ran out of time as the meeting went for 2 hours. josh -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
