On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 03:19:03 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 08:51:31PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Monday 04 June 2007 20:46:52 Axel Thimm wrote: > > > So do a rebuild for test1. > > > > Which is well before the feature freeze and thus not really suitable for what > > you're trying to accomplish. > > Well, that was a reply to some comments from Michael which w/o a quote > I can't even remember if it was ironic or meant that way. Which is one of the fundamental problems whenever we meet eachother. I don't have bad intentions or interest in non-obvious ironic comments (not in #240835 either). Here's the quote, some comments below: | If we somehow try to prepare binaries right in time before test1 in | accordance with a clear roadmap, I'm fine with that. I still would like to | see maintainers be the ones to touch packages if they need to be touched | and not just for rebuild-fun. It could be either one: A scheduled deadline in the roadmap with a request to maintainers to [at least] try rebuilding their packages once in a given period. Or a mass-rebuild like those Matt Domsch has done separately, but which publishes successful rebuilds in rawhide and collects build failure logs somewhere. In either case, I would prefer if the maintainers or co-maintainers had to push a button in that procedure. Such an attempt at touching/updating packages early, e.g. right in time before test1, is not to be understood as a freeze or final rebuild. It's just an event to test how many packages still build. -- 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
