On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 11:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 11:05 -0800, Adam Williamson 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. > > I should also note for completeness the other string to this debate: > > https://github.com/wgwoods/fedup/issues/21 > > that would make the upgradepath issue more or less moot, as you can > already use --distro-sync for yum/dnf upgrades. For the record, I spent an hour or two looking at this, and it seems like it'd be *almost* easy to make fedup do distro-sync right now - I had a quick hack version working in a simple test - but due to issues with the organization of the necessary code in yum, it may not be practical to do it unless a) we can get some code moved around in yum or b) we port fedup to DNF. See: https://github.com/wgwoods/fedup/issues/21#issuecomment-71547360 https://github.com/wgwoods/fedup/issues/21#issuecomment-71550808 -- 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
