On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:11:56PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Yes, but our concern isn't with the Python module's dependencies on > the Platform module, it's with *other* components that depend on the > Python module: if stream expansion were to pick up all non-EOL > branches as being "active", then it would be difficult to safely > bootstrap the streams for new feature releases (since other modules > would then start implicitly trying to build against them before they > were ready). >From the presentation I saw yesterday, right now, there isn't an "alpha" service level tag; "rawhide" is probably the closest. But if we added one, or even assuming just "rawhide", those SLs should be inhereted into the downstream modules (and then presumably filtered out for users who don't want that kind of thing). > > I'd think the solution is simply to mark your module with "Service > > Level: alpha" (and then we'd want some tooling where SL-alpha and > > SL-beta modules only show up for those who ask for them.) > If the definition of active stream (for stream expansion purposes) > were to exclude SL-alpha (and maybe SL-beta) streams in addition to > EOL ones, then yes, I think that would handle my/our concerns, as then > there would be a way to indicate that a *new* streams should be > considered inactive without needing to set a misleading EOL date. I think we'd probably _still_ want it active, because even if it fails, it's nice to know that sooner rather than later. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
