On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:48:36 +0100 > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > No disagreement on this. But I really don't see what you gain by > > forcing EVRs to "updates < testing < rawhide" for "packages in > > testing". > > That's simply because you're failing to consider that things which are > in testing have (high) potential to make it into stable. That's "updates < testing" ... a necessary condition, because otherwise you won't be able to install a package from "testing". > It would be > better for maintainers to fix nevra issues while the build is still in > testing than to wait until it hits updates. Are you saying packages in "testing" automatically hit "updates"? This would be the next design flaw. This renders "testing" further useless. I sense we seemingly we have a basic divergence on the purpose of testing. You seem to understand it as a "delay queue" for updates, giving some people a chance to check packages and withdraw them when they feel they need to. I understand "testing" as "auxiliary repo" taking candidate packages for "updates", which generally should only be pushed by request, not "by timeout" nor by "no receiving complaints". Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
