On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages > > pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will > > be) approved as updates. So it's perfectly possible people who installed > > pre-releases will have what you term 'unwanted' packages anyway. This > > seems to be to be reasonable for those who run pre-releases, but I > > suppose we could write it up somewhere for clarity... > > Yes, the broken decision was to enable updates-testing by default for > prereleases and we should never do this again. It just can't work, because > updates-testing is like the Red Pill: once you're on it, you can't get off > anymore. The fedora-release update which disabled updates-testing broke many > user setups, suddenly unable to install packages due to dependencies. Pre-release users, you mean. Who ought to be ready to deal with this sort of thing, or else they shouldn't be installing pre-releases. Full refunds available, etc. I'm not horribly bothered about it, really, now we know it happens and can spot the symptoms. (and you can get off it, you can just search for packages from updates-testing and yum downgrade 'em. Wouldn't be too hard for someone to hack up a little script to do this and publish it somewhere, if they were terribly worried about this issue). In practice it shouldn't be a hugely horrible problem after a few days/weeks, as most of the updates will get pushed or superseded. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
