On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 15:46 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > Okay, we've definitely got some slight misunderstanding here... :) > > I was objecting to Kevin's suggestion that we should be able to build > official packages from branches named ^private-*. But building from a > branch tagged something !^private- is actually necessary sometimes. > > The kernel folks have had to do just that from time to time. For > example, say the F12 cvs head moves on towards 2.6.32 and an official > build is submitted to updates-testing. Meanwhile, a security update for > the already-released-to-users 2.6.31.x kernel needs to get pushed out. > We create an F12-specific 2.6.31.x branch and build an *official* kernel > to push to updates post-haste to fix the security issue. This *does* > need to be allowed. But it wouldn't be on a branch named "private-*", it > would be quite blatant and obvious in naming, such as > f12-2_6_31_x-kernel-branch or similar. > > I think there was some confusion in my use of "private branch", where I > was referring to branches with a name ^private-*, while Kevin was > thinking in a more general sense, which would encompass the above kernel > example. > I understand the use case, I'm still not super keen on having official built packages come out of a branch. Makes discovery somewhat difficult, and leads to problems if we have to bump+build something and don't realize that the real live code is actually on a branch. So this needs some more thinking, and discussion, which is happening here, which is a good thing. Healthy debate is good, lets just endeavor to keep it healthy (: -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
