Re: systemd acceptance, packaging guidelines (was Re: systemd and changes)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>
>> > > The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
>> > > keeping it around during pre-release, so that if we decide we need to
>> > > fall back to upstart for final release, it's easy to do. As far as I
>> > > know, the plan is to decide later (presumably after beta) which one
>> > > we're going with, and dump the other.
>> > >
>> >
>> > So the alpha and beta will be tested in a configuration that the final
>> > release will not?
>>
>> Hmm, I'd say 'not really, no' (unless we decide to fall back to
>> upstart)
>
> I think that's precisely the concern.  In the event that F14 goes back
> to upstart, the final release will use a configuration that may not have
> received much testing.  If we want to claim that it's safe to switch
> back to upstart after beta, we need to be testing that configuration
> now, along with the systemd configuration.

Well that wouldn't be a systemd issue but a flaw in our feature process.
We have Feature foo with rollback plan to go back to bar.

We decide to revert foo due to bug X, Y and Z and we and up with foo
after beta ...
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux