On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Also, we have a much worse case of versions going backwards. After each > > Alpha release, lots of people are going to install Branched pre-releases > > and they automatically get enabled updates-testing repos. And in that > > updates-testing repo, packages are often pulled out and versions go > > backwards. Why is such practice allowed in Branched, but not in rawhide? > > Enabling updates-testing by default for Branched was a very stupid decision. > This should be reverted. updates-testing should NEVER be enabled by default. You don't make any attempt to engage with the reason for it: to ensure that updates get sufficient testing. I'm surprised you don't like this decision, since you're forever complaining about updates not getting karma fast enough. updates-testing is enabled for branched releases precisely to help updates get tested. If you want the policy to be changed, you should at least engage with why it is the way it is, and explain why you think the benefits of not enabling updates-testing by default in Branched releases (which, to me, seem marginal: it saves people who run pre-releases and then update to final a bit of trouble) outweigh the drawbacks (which, in the shape of reduced feedback on testing updates for Branched releases, could be significant). > We should instead focus on getting stuff out to stable faster. In > particular, why not allow direct stable pushes (without any karma) for > branched-but-unreleased versions? Could you please stop getting up on this horse at every opportunity, even in extremely tangentially-related threads? Everyone's aware that you think this is what should happen. I don't see that you're getting anywhere just by bringing it up at every possible opportunity. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
