On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 06:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 12/08/2014 08:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 07:36 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > Just for the purpose of testing upgrade.img, you can simply > > > > enable updates-testing if it turns out you have a situation > > > > like this and you need a package from u-t to make the upgrade > > > > package set viable. > > > This is not true. They are completely different scenarios. > > > > > > The purpose of using "release"+"updates"+"updates-testing" is > > > entirely different from using "release"+"updates", esp. in > > > stages like these. > > > > > > The purpose of using "release"+"updates" is to test upgrading to > > > Fedora(N+1) (and testing fedup/yum/dnf-support ) and not to test > > > update-candidate packages from "update-testing". > > > > I don't really see the distinction as important, > I consider this to be critically important ... > > > because it is a > > perennially moving target in any case. After Tuesday, f21 will get > > a new stable updates push every day. > ... it is likely the #1 cause of users facing broken updates - Esp. > during time-frames shortly after releases like these. > > I haven't checked details this time, but there a quite a few reports > indicating this has happened again with this release. I haven't seen a single person report a dep issue of this nature, and I spent most of release day in #fedora, and have been following G+, forum, and various news site feedback since. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
