On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 16:11 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > With a change along those lines, I think we could plausibly look > > at hard enforcement of the upgrade path, and it would be a good > > improvement. It may be necessary to have *some* kind of override > > mechanism for the case where we have a major security issue we > > really need to fix in stable ASAP, and karma for Branched is > > lagging behind. > > There should be a good way to have enforcement. It will take extra > thought. knowing where we are in the release process can let us > check against different repos. Final Freeze is the tricky bit and > perhaps we just push stable updates and cherry pick in fixes. Hum, good points earlier on. So thinking this through again...the bit I forgot to mention - the reason why 'updates' matters - is that on fedup to Branched, updates- testing is (usually) not used, because fedup takes its repo set from the release being upgraded from. I don't know if it'd be practical to change that, or if we should just look at the distro-sync mode as the 'solution'. It'd be good to get Will's thoughts. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct