On 2012-09-10 15:22, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.09.12 15:14, Adam Williamson (awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
On 2012-09-10 15:03, Kalev Lember wrote:
>
>The hard reality is that branched and rawhide are getting pretty
much
>the same set of packages currently. It's a very nice view to let
>development go ahead in rawhide, and to stabilize branched. But we
>only
>have so many developers and everyone is focusing on branched,
leaving
>rawhide broken.
I don't think that's true, actually. There certainly are devs who
take advantage of the model. Lennart wrote that 'everyone' has to
for it to be valuable, but that isn't true at all.
I can recall at least two notifications to the list about updates to
major libraries happening in Rawhide that aren't happening in F18.
One of them is boost: it's up a whole major version in Rawhide
compared to F18. That's exactly how the policy is supposed to work.
I forget exactly what the other was, but I know there was at least
one more.
Another example from today - the Postgresql maintainer mailed the
list to say that now F18 is delayed he'll be putting the new version
in F18, but until then, he was planning to have the newer version in
Rawhide only - again, exactly how the policy is supposed to work.
Those are just examples from memory, not even looking through the
archives.
What I am proposing is to get rid of the "master" branch, so that
people
can just branch off F-19 as early and as late as they want, and they
do
it from F-18 on their own. The mass branching would go away this way,
(might only be a side-effect of distro-wide rebuilds).
This way, Lennart would just maintain systemd in the F-18 branch. And
then in a month or two he would branch F-19 off this branch. And then
when he is ready to open F-20 he would branch it off F-19. And so
on. But the time where Lennart decides to branch off is up to him.
In your example above the boost maintainer otoh could branch off F-19
much earlier than Lennart branches off systemd. Both packagers would
have full flexibility when to branch off.
This would give packagers much more flexibility about branching and
would also simplify our model as the master branch would just go
away... One branch less that can be confused is a win for
everybody.
I don't see a problem with that, but then I'm just the monkey :)
--
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
