On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 05:39 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote: > > So I really see two options for improving these situations: > > 1) https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/663 I opened this ticket two > > months ago (to silence). The idea would be to add the ability for > > bodhi > > updates to mark other updates as a dependency, so that in the example > > above, Firefox could have been marked as ready for stable, but not > > pushed until the nss update was also marked as ready for stable. This > > to > > me seems like the best long-term solution. I'd also like to mention > > that > > Ubuntu's Launchpad system has this capability. > > Having this implemented manually would be great. In the future I'd > like to replace it with automatic process managed by AutoQA. AutoQA > would say Bodhi "this update can be only pushed together with this > other update, because the first one depends on the second one". The > maintainer wouldn't then be forced to create mega-updates for > dependent packages. I'm not sure we necessarily want AutoQA to be _driving_ processes like this, do we? Properly, it should be _verifying_ that updates are dependency-complete, not performing the task of making them dependency-complete. Doesn't it work better to have the dependencies-in-updates stuff handled at the level of the existing tools by which developers work with updates - i.e. Bodhi? Has AutoQA really been designed to the requirements of acting as a traffic cop for Bodhi? -- 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
