On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:31:58 +0200 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think that this is really going to break our workflow! I think it's going to help our workflow and provide our users with more stable updates. Time will tell. > For example, for the Fedora 14 under development, we now have to wait > a full week to be able to push fixes for broken dependencies! Fixes > for broken dependencies MUST go out to stable ASAP! Well, this has nothing to do with that. We are currently only pushing to stable those updates that are needed to fix Alpha release blockers in F14. So, it wouldn't matter here. Barring that tho, if they are broken now in f14, it should be very easy to verify that the update fixes the broken deps and is installable no? > This draconian crap must be disabled at least for unreleased > branches. It's really keeping us from doing our work. > > A package cannot be any worse than a package that doesn't install at > all! Sure it can. It can eat data, it can remove other packages. it can break more important ones, it could be broken in different and more subtle way, etc. Note that I am really uninterested in "argument by repetition", so I don't intend to post further to this thread unless there is something new to remark on. I would urge others to not get in a cycle of back and forth with all the same arguments repeated over and over. Post if you have something new to offer and please try and keep things positive. We all want a better Fedora. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
