On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 11:02 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 10:55 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > So to make this a reality, we need to ensure that whatever is in rawhide > > has a *>=* ENVR than anything in the other trees. So I assume that when > > submitting a bodhi update, bodhi would check rawhide and ensure that > > whatever you were about to submit to 13-pending was <= whatever was in > > rawhide. Otherwise we'd get into a great big mess of not being able to > > update to rawhide packages because whatever was in 13-pending was > > 'newer' than rawhide. Right? > > > > We should have this anyway just to help upgradability between distros; > > bodhi should not allow a package to be added to an update if it's a > > "newer" ENVR than that same package in any of the "newer" distros. > > Yes, but it may happen before the bodhi stage, when we get autoqa > working on post-build tests. This kind of check could happen at SCM > commit time, package build time, or finally bodhi push time. Seems > reasonable that we'd want to catch it as early as possible, but that > does force people to work on rawhide first, then work on the pending > release which may be under critical time pressure. Certainly something > to discuss. Catching it at bodhi time seems too late. Good point. SCM commit time (or tag time) with a CVS hook would be awesome as long as the hook was fast enough. Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
