On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:40:10 -0600 Dennis Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:40:52 -0500 > Ralph Bean <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello again, following up here on this patch: > > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/buildsys/2015-January/004470.html > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/buildsys/2014-August/004344.html > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084583 > > > > Should I make some changes? Is the patch generally unacceptable? > > I do not know that we want to approach things in that manner. I would > much rather put automated qa and testing in place post build and pre > release and just ship things known to be not broken. though there > could always be cases that slip through. I wonder if we could do the same thing we are doing with deltas now. ie, ship 2 versions of every package (current and previous) and then over time remove the previous ones only keeping more recent ones. So, say you have foo-1.0-1.fc23 and a foo-2.0-1.fc23 is pushed. Keep both for a week, then remove foo-1.0-1.fc23, with the idea being that if there is some horrible problem with the package people are likely to notice in a week or two and immediately downgrade, but after a few weeks the likelyhood is that the new version is ok. Just a thought. kevin
pgpBhieIng3IZ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- buildsys mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/buildsys
