Hello Kevin, On Thursday, August 12, 2010, 8:04:12 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> The F-(x) package will have higher EVR than the F-(x+1) one. This >> will break the upgrade path. Is there any measures to prevent this? > No. In fact FESCo specifically refused to consider this as an issue, they > say separate releases need separate testing and so they refuse to accept the > Fn karma as grounds to push the Fn+1 update. No amount of arguing helped. > Such broken upgrade paths are now going to be extremely common with this > useless, broken and inflexible procedure. > Kevin Kofler You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in spite of no (or negative) testing. My understanding is that _that_ is what FESCo refused to consider. A saner approach would be that for related changes, release Fn-1 should not be pushed to stable until release Fn is _also_ ready to go. This prevents the EVR problem, and ensures that regressions caught on release Fn that are also applicable to release Fn-1 will not escape. Al -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
