On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 11:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 11:05 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > With a change along those lines, I think we could plausibly look
> > at hard enforcement of the upgrade path, and it would be a good
> > improvement. It may be necessary
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 03:02:32 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The solution for that is to finally allow multi-release update
> groups, where the karma would be added together for all releases. If
> we push the exact same security fix to 3 releases, it should not need
> separate testing for each.
Whil
Adam Williamson wrote:
> So thinking this through again...the bit I forgot to mention - the
> reason why 'updates' matters - is that on fedup to Branched, updates-
> testing is (usually) not used, because fedup takes its repo set from
> the release being upgraded from. I don't know if it'd be pract
Adam Williamson wrote:
> With a change along those lines, I think we could plausibly look at
> hard enforcement of the upgrade path, and it would be a good
> improvement. It may be necessary to have *some* kind of override
> mechanism for the case where we have a major security issue we really
> ne
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:05:52 -0800,
Adam Williamson wrote:
Someone proposed that using the 'updates' repository during the
Branched period could help solve quite a few things here, and I think
that's an interesting idea.
The other thing it fixes is packages dgowing up as orphaned when th
On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 16:11 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > With a change along those lines, I think we could plausibly look
> > at hard enforcement of the upgrade path, and it would be a good
> > improvement. It may be necessary to have *some* kind of override
> > mechanism for the case where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 11:05:52 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 17:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > So, enforcing upgrade path for stable releases sounds good. But
> > > when we add development releases in
On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 11:05 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> With a change along those lines, I think we could plausibly look at
> hard enforcement of the upgrade path, and it would be a good
> improvement. It may be necessary to have *some* kind of override
> mechanism for the case where we h
On Sat, 2015-01-24 at 17:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kamil Paral wrote:
> > So, enforcing upgrade path for stable releases sounds good. But
> > when we add development releases into the mix, we need to break
> > upgrade path in certain cases. And we probably need to come up
> > with a differ
Kamil Paral wrote:
> So, enforcing upgrade path for stable releases sounds good. But when we
> add development releases into the mix, we need to break upgrade path in
> certain cases. And we probably need to come up with a different solution
> to ensure you can correctly upgrade to it on the releas
> Hi all.
>
> When upgrading F20 to F21 using FedUp, some users had a problem
> with some packages not being upgraded (e.g. [1]). The problem was
> caused by broken update path F20 -> F21.
Just a note: That problem is even more complex. Fedora Branched some has freeze
periods, when you can't pus
On 01/15/2015 05:15 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:19:19AM +0100, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> > Hi all.
> >
> > When upgrading F20 to F21 using FedUp, some users had a problem
> > with some packages not being upgraded (e.g. [1]). The problem was
> > caused by broken update path F20 ->
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:19:19AM +0100, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> When upgrading F20 to F21 using FedUp, some users had a problem
> with some packages not being upgraded (e.g. [1]). The problem was
> caused by broken update path F20 -> F21.
>
> For example in wget's case I pushed updates
On 2015-01-15, 09:19 GMT, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> I think bodhi should enforce the update path is not broken and
> hold the update for F20 until the update for F21 is in stable.
Gosh, I thought bodhi already enforces update policy ... :(
Matěj
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
ht
Hi all.
When upgrading F20 to F21 using FedUp, some users had a problem
with some packages not being upgraded (e.g. [1]). The problem was
caused by broken update path F20 -> F21.
For example in wget's case I pushed updates for the same NVR in F20
and F21 with auto-karma. However the wget update f
15 matches
Mail list logo
