On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 01:09:41PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 August 2007 12:19:09 pm Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:54:11AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Given that with just the fully technical issues we're at just a bit
> > > over 1/2 the package set for Fedora we've got some hard choices to
> > > make. Obviously we'd like to rely upon the maintainers to rebuild
> > > their packages, however with just a week to accomplish this that may be
> > > nearly impossible. It's also a rather large number of packages to try
> > > and automate over, with a large degree of different $release values to
> > > try and automatically bump (especially without resorting to just
> > > plonking a ".1" to the end of everything which is against the
> > > guidelines). There is also a rather large list of things that failed
> > > to rebuild during Matt Domsch's last rebuild test, and I don't know how
> > > many of those have been fixed. That can cause some delays as well.
> > >
> > > So I ask you, great Fedora Community, how do we want to handle this
> > > situation? I'm open for suggestions, but we should decide something
> > > before the end of the day given our time constraints.
> >
> > The following suggestion will not buy you any lunch for fixing the
> > issue *now*, but this is the rigth time to address this, as when it
> > was addressed in the past the pain was not there:
> >
> > Imagine all packages in rawhide not having a disttag of fc8 (98% of
> > specfiles have a disttag), but one of fc7_90 reflecting the state they
> > were in, e.g. FC8test1. Next imagine one person of rel-eng bumping
> > that to fc7_91 and koji picking this up.
> you have brought this up in the past and it has been knocked back. It has
> been decided no special disttags for test releases.
Did I imply otherwise? If it had been different we wouldn't have this
thread at all in the first place, would we?
Many people around here are more learners by experience than by theory
and now the experience is here, it's ugly and people are more
interested in thinking about it and possibly (and hopefully) revising
old decisions that brought us here.
Don't underestimate Fedorians, they are neither dump, nor stubborn,
[1] - a good solution will find its way through sooner or later.
[1] OK, I admit, some are. Take this sentence with the appropriate
grain of salt and self-irony ;)
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpj6qr6OqeRX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
