On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list: > > Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found" > > I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and > if a bad build was put out, it should be fixed with epoch or other such > NVR things to make sure the upgrade path continues. (that is once a > build makes it out in the nightly repos) > Yep. You are correct. If I'm doing proper forensics of fesco meeting notes and tickets and google searches of the wiki, this policy was approved twice by fesco but didn't get documented either time: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/96 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20090313 The original proposal fell out of the no frozen rawhide FAD if I remember correctly. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpRu_2nHTxMw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
