On Nov 12, 2015 7:21 AM, "Josh Boyer" <jwbo...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > I think that Bodhi should arrange, at least by default, to push things in > > the correct order. Whether that means that karma is required separately for > > each branch is an orthogonal issue, except insofar as allowing karma from > > one branch to carry over to another would also require Bodhi to track that > > two updates are the same thing but just to different branches. > > Two updates in separate branches are never the same thing. They may > be the same version of the specific package, but there is no guarantee > that: > > a) they were built with the same toolchain > b) they were built with the same configuration options > c) they were built for the same reasons > > While it would be convenient for developers to tell bodhi they are the > same, it's a lie we all tell ourselves. I don't think we should code > our update tool to lie. > > > At the very least, Bodhi should *not* push to F22 due to autokarma until F23 > > stable is requested. > > I certainly agree with this in principle, but it would force > everything (including rawhide composes) to be serial and the slowdown > would be significant. >
I'm a bit confused. Wouldn't rawhide be unaffected because rawhide can always have newer versions without breaking the upgrade path? It's only the old branch (currently F22) that would be slower, no? --Andy --Andy > josh > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
