On 06/22/2010 09:57 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:03:08 -0400, Stephen wrote: > >> Django 1.2.1 was recently pushed to stable in Fedora 13. This should not >> have been done without discussion on this list. > > Just to understand what has happened here: > In three weeks, nobody has added any comment to the update in bodhi. > Has it gone unnoticed by all the people who depend on Django? No announcement was made that there was an update available for testing. It only addressed one bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584866 - a packaging bug), so it wouldn't have been advertised that way either. > >> Django 1.2 breaks API >> with Django 1.1, resulting in breaking at least two Django-based >> packages in Fedora: Transifex and ReviewBoard. >> >> ReviewBoard has an available upstream version that will work with either >> (and I will now have to package early), but Transifex has no plans to >> support Django 1.2 in the immediate future (since 1.1 will remain >> supported upstream for some time). >> >> Furthermore, these issues were already discussed in the bodhi update for >> the EPEL5 version of this package, and it was decided that the upgrade >> was not sensible there either. > > When? Where? Am I right in assuming that the bodhi update has been > _deleted_ by the packager? Yes, the EPEL 5 bodhi update was deleted after myself and several other members of the Fedora Infrastructure group gave it negative karma. > >> After that discussion, it seems to me >> that it would have been sensible to raise a discussion about pushing >> this update into a stable Fedora. (Rawhide was fine, as it would have >> given Transifex several months to add compatibility). -- Stephen Gallagher RHCE 804006346421761 Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
