On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 9/20/11 9:19 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>> Currently >>> I only see mails of maintainers who plan updating the library, but the >>> rest of it pretty much depends on the maintainers of the depending >>> components rebuilding them quickly enough, and the original maintainer >>> to include them in the F-16 branched update. >>> >>> I'd like to see a discussion about how we can ensure -- within >>> reasonable limits -- that e.g. bumping a library's SONAME is followed by >>> dependent components being rebuilt and included with the providing >>> component in one update. >> >> I'd like to see a discussion on the proceedures currently being applied >> by QA, esp. "during freezes". IMO, they are unsuitable and harmful. > > I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into > the OS so close to a release. Maintainers on vacation, non-trivial changes? In my case, a major change was introduced into rawhide many weeks ago, which had caused breakage in rawhide. One maintainer being involved was in vacation, another one was non-responsive. Ca. 4 weeks later the issues were resolved in rawhide and we started to propagate these changes to f16 and where caught by the delay queues. > In the absence of a very good motivation, > that's not good engineering practice, and it's not consistent with the > feature process. > > Perhaps you're not clear on what the word "freeze" means. Perhaps you're not clear on what the word defective procedures means? This socalled QA now is testing non-installable rsp. obsolete packages. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
