On 08/06/2009 09:33 PM, Till Maas wrote:
Hiyas,
currently upstream release monitoring[0] bug filing is opt-in, which
means that it will be only performed for packages that have been activly
added by probably a maintainer of the package. There is at least one
maintainer that does not like having these bugs filed for his packages,
so he can remove his packages from the list.
I'd prefer this system to be kept opt-in, because I think
a) A system can only be made opt-out, if a system can handle the
overwhelming number of cases automatically. However, [0] indicates this
does not (yet?) apply. Conversely it explicitly asks for manual interaction.
b) You seem to be presuming all upstreams to apply one single "newer
metric" (Versioning scheme). This doesn't apply, there exist several
different versioning schemes, e.g. pre-/bugfix-release versionings,
perl-versioning vs. rpm versioning etc. Also, many projects occasionally
change their versioning schemes or don't even apply one.
How do you plan to handle this?
c) Some upstreams occasionally change their download URLs or use
non-permanent URLs or some "more or less unstable" URL-redirection.
How do you want to hangle this?
Would it be ok, to do this and allow maintainers to add there package to
a black list, so that no bugs will be filed or should it continue to be
opt-in? Then the packags will still be checked, but only reported by
other, non intrusive ways, e.g. via a website.
<alarm bell ring/> Website? == yet more bureaucracy ????
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_Release_Monitoring
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
