On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:12:47 -0400, seth wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Al Dunsmuir wrote: > > > You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in > > > spite of no (or negative) testing. > > > > Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfile for all F*, then I don't see > > why testing on ANY F* isn't sufficient. Please don't bring the same old > > argument that "sometimes" breakage happens only on some releases even with > > the same specfile: in practice this is so rare that it doesn't matter at > > all, it's much more likely that regressions slip through despite the > > testing. > > > Last week I pushed a yum update to f12, f13 and f14 - same pkg, same > patches, same config. > > On f12, however, the version of sqlite that f12 had handles an error > condition differently than on f13 and f14. It meant that instead of > raise an exception and letting us move along that it raised an exception > and then exited. > > So - the pkg checked out on f13 and f14 just fine but not on f12. > > I had to issue a new update for all of them to keep them in sync. > > That's a real world case that happens all the time. +1, +10, +1000 … happens with Fedora and also with Fedora EPEL. I've always warned about mass-pushing updates to multiple dists, and I'm glad I'm not the only one. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
