On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:49 PM, David Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 08:36 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 18:22 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: >> > One way or another, if I were building a distribution that wanted to >> > simultaneously claim that it is both new code and 'tested and working', >> > I'd try to plan in a way that it wasn't a flip of the coin on every >> > machine which you'll get today. >> >> Now here's a crazy idea, that nobody seems to want to follow: >> >> Treat rawhide as your 'new code' land, leave the release trees as your >> 'testing and working' code. That is don't be so goddamn eager to push >> new packages and new upstream releases to every freaking branch in >> existence. >> >> Of course, when I make suggestions like these, I become extremely >> unpopular. > > I've only partly followed this discussion, but one simple implementation > idea, if this hasn't been thought of/implemented: > - have bodhi detect if the version part of the NVR is being changed; if > so, raise the karma level needed to push the package. > There is nothing to stop breaking changes sneaking into revision bumps only. Especially when the package is a source control snapshot of some future version. Version numbers mean different things to different upstream projects anyway, so I don't think anybody (anybodhi?) here should be defining what a version bump signifies. > Rationale: it's my belief that a rebase to a different upstream version > typically carries greater risk of destabilization than targeted > patching. Thus, a bump to a more recent upstream should receive more > testing than a packaging/patch change. > > > Hope this helps > Dave > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- Mat Booth www.matbooth.co.uk -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
