On Nov 12, 2015 7:21 AM, "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I think that Bodhi should arrange, at least by default, to push things in
> > the correct order. Whether that means that karma is required separately for
> > each branch is an orthogonal issue, except insofar as allowing karma from
> > one branch to carry over to another would also require Bodhi to track that
> > two updates are the same thing but just to different branches.
>
> Two updates in separate branches are never the same thing. They may
> be the same version of the specific package, but there is no guarantee
> that:
>
> a) they were built with the same toolchain
> b) they were built with the same configuration options
> c) they were built for the same reasons
>
> While it would be convenient for developers to tell bodhi they are the
> same, it's a lie we all tell ourselves. I don't think we should code
> our update tool to lie.
>
> > At the very least, Bodhi should *not* push to F22 due to autokarma until F23
> > stable is requested.
>
> I certainly agree with this in principle, but it would force
> everything (including rawhide composes) to be serial and the slowdown
> would be significant.
>
I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't rawhide be unaffected because rawhide can always have newer versions without breaking the upgrade path? It's only the old branch (currently F22) that would be slower, no?
--Andy
--Andy
> josh
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
