On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Owen Taylor wrote: >> >> I build an update for foo and bar. >> >> foo is a critical update >> bar is not a critical update >> >> bar requires that version of foo. > > That doesn't seem to be a problem - foo will go out, and bar will wait > until Tuesday. But if you meant the reverse - a critical update that > depends on a non-critical update, then, in my understanding we *already* > have this problem. I did mean the reverse - sorry for getting it backward there. > If foo and bar are submitted as independent updates, and only bar gets > sufficient karma, or foo is "critical path" and needs releng approval > and bar isn't, then we push bar out and not foo and we have a broken > updates push. > The answer I've heard on this is that foo and bar should have been > submitted as one update. Obviously it would be better if our tooling > could detect this problem and manage it sensibly. so it seems like in lieu of changing our updates policy right now we should: 1. continue the autoqa work 2. help those checks have more/better meaning for our packagers/developers/contributors and then reassess things once the autoqa is in place and being enforced? -sv -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
