On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 20:39 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 00:28 +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > OK, so it needs like the tester needs to be smarter and realize that if there's > > a newer build in updates-testing it's OK. I guess dist-fn-updates-testing needs > > to be compared with the most recent of dist-f(n+1)-updates and > > dist-f(n+1)-updates-testing, but dist-fn-updates only with dist-f(n+1)-updates > > (because I don't think we want updates being pushed for the older release when > > they're still in testing in the newer one). > > > > I can take a look at the code of the script to see if I can fix it. > > I think you're too focused on the scenario where the same update is > being pushed to all the branches, when that isn't always what is > happening. It's quite possible that different updates are being pushed, > could be at the same time, could be at different times, and those > updates could be completely unrelated to each other. > > Since this is just an informative mailing, I think it's safe to let the > maintainer decide if there is an actual problem or not, just like they > will when they've requested an update that will fix any N-V-R issues, > but it just hasn't been pushed yet. Also I'm trying to keep any "domain" knowledge out of the script so that it's more easily usable for other sites making use of koji. The only real domain knowledge in it is the variable definitions at the top of the script and the one place where we assume <package>-owner@ is a valid contact for the package. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
