On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 19:37 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:58:02 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 11:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:12:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Violated upgrade path issues still hit users. One example: > > > > > > R in F21 older than in F19 > > > > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-December/456108.html > > > > > > Other users don't ask the Fedora Project but just give up and > > > hope it will work some months later (which isn't guaranteed > > > either). > > > > That's not a dependency problem. Nothing breaks. > > Really? Awesome, so now you have me running a test install of F20 with R just to see what happens in this situation. There's certainly no other way I could be using my damn morning. We seem to keep going in circles here. Here's what I'm contending: * Any particular fedup test is only of value, regarding package upgrade path issues, for that particular day's compose of *both* the 'from' distro *and* the 'to' distro. We started debating this last week, and there was at least one updates push for *both* F20 *and* F21 between last week and the GA date. So 'failures' for fedup upgradepath last week were not necessarily failing on release day. Is it useful to catch upgradepath issues and then go to Bodhi, look into the state of the from and to distros, and try to help make sure they're consistent for release day? Of course it is. But with the way updates currently work, I think it's taking things too far to say that it's worthless to test upgrades against updates-testing, which was one place where we started this endless debate. * The obvious way you can really 'solve' this 'problem' is to tighten down the updates policy, but that's not a free action. It *does* come with negative consequences and there *will* be pushback against it from packagers. Personally I am totally happy if anyone wants to come up with a comprehensive proposal for adjusting the updates policy and *take it to FESCo*, who own the updates policy. If someone comes up with such a proposal, we can even put it up for discussion on this list or in a QA meeting and decide if QA as a whole wants to back it in the FESCo discussion. But I'm just tired of going around in endless discussion, especially when no-one seems to acknowledge the issue just isn't as straightforward as 'oh well it's OBVIOUSLY wrong and we should OBVIOUSLY just have strict upgradepath enforcement'. The other path you can take is to try and convince wwoods to have fedup do distro-sync. The bug reports for that are https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892061 and h ttps://github.com/wgwoods/fedup/issues/21 . Given that wwoods filed https://github.com/wgwoods/fedup/issues/21 himself, I'm guessing he'd welcome a patch. -- 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
