On 09/08/2016 07:05 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>>>>>> Sounds like this scope would warrant a Change? >>>>>> >>>>>> The components should be already prepared for DNF-2 and the changes >>>>>> are not huge. There's the FESCO ticket [5]. If it is not accepted then >>>>>> we will submit a Change. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, the preferred approach would be for this to come to FESCo *as* >>>>> a >>>>> Change. Mostly because the Change Process requires you to explain the >>>>> situation >>>>> fully and establish a contingency plan. >>>> >>>> Completely agree, we (rel-eng and I'm sure others) don't want to find >>>> out one day everything is broken due to this change and the compose is >>>> up the spout. Core components such as dnf need to follow the process >>>> properly and communicate far and wide so people are aware of the >>>> changes in flight that could affect everything from builds to users >>>> updating. >>> >>> FESCo requested that a System Wide Change should be submitted for this. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dominik >> >> Ok, we will file a System Wide Change then. > > Yet it's not filed here [1] as a system wide change. Why? Given it's > the updates system there, at least IMO, needs to be full contingency > plans etc. Sorry, the history of the dnf team not breaking stuff even > on small bumps gives me little faith this will be smooth. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DNF-2.0 Give them a little time, Peter. It's still marked as ChangePageIncomplete :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
