On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 11:49 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:02:00 +0100 > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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". > > And if you make the next logical leap, F7-updates < F8(-updates). So > your F7-updates-testing build had better have a lower nevra than that > which is either going into f8-updates(-testing), or already released on > F8 in some way. ... yes, testing == scratch, volatile ... potential junk, you're on your own, use at your risk. > > > 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"? > > No, only if a maintainer chooses such and certain requirements happen, > like karma points reaching a threshold. > > > 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". > > It's not a me or you thing. This seems to be a you vs the rest of the > maintainers thing. I realize you don't want to discuss but to "pull your cart through", Sarge - sad, ... Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
