On 2011-08-19 20:41, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Updates can be pulled out of updates-testing at any moment, which makes a
> lot of sense, but which means that users with updates-testing enabled will
> end up with the EVR going backwards, something that's not even allowed in
> Rawhide.
>
> Enabling updat
Looks like I forgot to reply to this:
Adam Williamson wrote:
> That's ass backwards, though. We need the testing _to determine if the
> things should be in the release_. Really, I think if you look at the
> quality of the releases that have happened since this policy was
> changed, it's pretty cle
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 22:17 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > 4. Updates-testing being enabled by default means that people installing an
> > Alpha or Beta immediately get fed tons of 0-day (actually negative-day)
> > updates, because the Alpha or Beta does not include those testing updates
> >
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 05:10 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > You don't make any attempt to engage with the reason for it: to ensure
> > that updates get sufficient testing.
>
> I kinda did, with the next paragraph (which you are quick to dismiss as off
> topic). :-)
>
> Pe
Adam Williamson wrote:
> You don't make any attempt to engage with the reason for it: to ensure
> that updates get sufficient testing.
I kinda did, with the next paragraph (which you are quick to dismiss as off
topic). :-)
People will test the stuff when it's marked stable, and that way they
ac
On 08/03/2011 10:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> We should instead focus on getting stuff out to stable faster. In
>> particular, why not allow direct stable pushes (without any karma) for
>> branched-but-unreleased versions?
>
> Could you
On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 22:12 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Enabling updates-testing by default for Branched was a very stupid
> > decision.
> > This should be reverted. updates-testing should NEVER be enabled by
> > default.
> >
> > We shoul
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Also, we have a much worse case of versions going backwards. After each
> > Alpha release, lots of people are going to install Branched pre-releases
> > and they automatically get enabled updates-testing repos. And in that
> > updates-test
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Enabling updates-testing by default for Branched was a very stupid
> decision.
> This should be reverted. updates-testing should NEVER be enabled by
> default.
>
> We should instead focus on getting stuff out to stable faster. In
> particu
Kalev Lember wrote:
> Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to
> depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g.
> Requires: rpm >= 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the
> correct epoch in there.
Indeed, Epoch should be used only as a la
On 07/27/2011 09:39 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR
>>> and staying there" and "a package getting untagged because it brea
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:29:23 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote:
> Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to
> depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g.
> Requires: rpm >= 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the
> correct epoch in there.
Worth
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 02:29 +0300, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 07/28/2011 08:48 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 03:24:58 PM Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and
> >> if a bad build was put out, it should be fixed with
On 07/28/2011 08:48 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 03:24:58 PM Jesse Keating wrote:
>> I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and
>> if a bad build was put out, it should be fixed with epoch or other such
>> NVR things to make sure the upgrade pat
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 03:24:58 PM Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
> > Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s)
> > found"
>
> I thought there was a hard rule about not
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:41:47AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 09:19 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > In this case, the bad rpm-build broke koji builds, and since Rawhide
> > > may eat babies, it can happen that Rawhide users n
On 7/28/11 8:41 AM, James Antill wrote:
> Sisyphean task ... IMO.
So was moving us off of CVS. *shrug*
>> > There are multiple ways to throw
>> > baby-eating updates over the wall for testing before they get into
>> > rawhide. Stop treating it like a dumping ground.
> But at some poin
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 09:19 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > In this case, the bad rpm-build broke koji builds, and since Rawhide
> > may eat babies, it can happen that Rawhide users need downgrade manually
> > while they have to wait for the fixed rpm-b
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 10:24 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> Maybe a more nuanced logo, e.g.
>
> "rawhide: tries hard to NOT eat babies"
We could have one of those workplace accident signs - "Rawhide Hasn't
Eaten A Baby For (XX) Days"...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw
On 07/28/2011 04:54 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:51:12 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
>
>> And how would we stop that? by...encouraging people not to use it as a
>> dumping ground. What's the best way to achieve that? Try and change the
>> perception of it as a dumping ground...
>
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:51:12 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Take off your pink glasses. Rawhide *is* a dumping ground. It breaks
> > users' installations regularly because of package maintainers using it
> > as exactly that, a dumping gr
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 20:39 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Take off your pink glasses. Rawhide *is* a dumping ground. It breaks
> users' installations regularly because of package maintainers using it
> as exactly that, a dumping ground for potentially untested builds.
And how would we stop tha
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 20:46:25 +0200,
drago01 wrote:
>
> The proper fix would have been to just use epoch. People can call them
> evil all they want they are perfectly suitable for that kind of
> problems.
Or just rebuild the old version again. (Which should work unless something
external to
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR
>> > and staying there" and "a package getting untagged bec
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote:
> On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR
> > and staying there" and "a package getting untagged because it breaks koji
> > buildroot and with the plan to go forwar
On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR
> and staying there" and "a package getting untagged because it breaks koji
> buildroot and with the plan to go forward in EVR as soon as the bug is
> found and fixed".
If it goes
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:42:09 -0700, TK (Toshio) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this l
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:42:09 -0700, TK (Toshio) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
> > > Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
> > Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
>
> I thought there was a hard rule about not
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 13:24 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
> > Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
>
> I thought there was a hard rule about not having
On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
> Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and
if a bad build was put out, it should be f
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
> Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
Thanks for the replies, Tomas and Michael. I somehow missed the part
where I needed to downgrade rpm
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:59:51 -0600, JJ (Jerry) wrote:
> I just did a "package-cleanup --orphans" on my Rawhide machine to see
> which of the just-blocked packages are installed there. To my
> surprise, I got this:
>
> # package-cleanup --orphans
> Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 13:59 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> I just did a "package-cleanup --orphans" on my Rawhide machine to see
> which of the just-blocked packages are installed there. To my
> surprise, I got this:
>
> # package-cleanup --orphans
> Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks
I just did a "package-cleanup --orphans" on my Rawhide machine to see
which of the just-blocked packages are installed there. To my
surprise, I got this:
# package-cleanup --orphans
Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
[snip stuff that I need to take care o
35 matches
Mail list logo
