On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 17:36, Timothy Murphy wrote: > On Friday 29 October 2004 23:02, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > presumably? there could be a last minute package downgrade between rc > > and final could interfere with upgrading from an rc in this manner. > > If you found there was a bug in version 7, > and you wanted to revert to version 6, > would it not be simpler to call it version 8? That definitely depends. If a packaging fix is applied, then yes, of course you bump the RPM release tag. However, look at what happened to Evolution in FC2. For a while during the test releases, the development series Evolution 1.5.x was in Rawhide (and in FC2t1 I believe). However, once it became clear that the stable version derived from the 1.5 series, which is the 2.0 series, wouldn't be done in time for FC2, it was backed down to the 1.4 series. As far as I can see, there's just no really sane way to recover from this; an epoch bump would make the downgrade happen automatically, but that is a somewhat draconian measure to fix a problem in the beta stage, and leaves you with dealing with the consequences forever. At this stage, to me the decision to let the beta testers just deal with it seems perfectly sane. Users of test releases are supposed to know what they're doing, or at least live be able to with their decisions. Also, the kernel version went backwards just before FC3t3; as far as I could tell what happened was pretty much that there were some pretty serious concerns about the later kernels (mostly SELinux related). There wasn't really enough time to fix everything correctly so by far the simplest solution was simply to dump the "last known good" kernel into FC3t3. Cheers, Per