On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 11:19 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > It doesn't obsolete it if it's already transitioning from testing -> > stable because it's basically not in "testing" state. This happens > all > the time even during the usual cycle, it's generally just not seen > during the usual cycle because stable pushes happen every day and > hence the packages aren't usually in the transition state for very > long.
Yeah, back when I worked on Bodhi this bothered me sometimes, but I
also had the thought that if I changed it to work the other way that
that would also cause some consternation ("why can't I create another
update, the other one is accepted for stabilization already!"). See,
Bodhi has it's own too fast, too slow problem ☺
I'm not really sure which way would be better, but I think I lean
towards thinking that maybe Bodhi really should wait until updates are
all the way stable before accepting new updates for the same packages.
I also think it'd be better UX wise if Bodhi prompted users before
obsoleting, because I could see it being frustrating if you obsoleted
an update that was about to go stable because you thought you could
submit a new one. A simple "are you sure you want to obsolete FEDORA-
2019-xyz?" would do it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
