Dne 19. 06. 23 v 11:55 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 11:22:35 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Right, not pushing to all branches is in line with official guidelines:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#stable-releases
It's more nuanced than "don't push updates to all branches" though:

".. we should avoid major updates of packages within a stable
release. Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce features,
particularly when those features would materially affect the user or
developer experience. The update rate for any given release should drop
off over time, approaching zero near release end-of-life; since updates
are primarily bugfixes, fewer and fewer should be needed over time."

So minor/patch version updates, especially for things like Python
packages that have frequent minor/patch releases is perfectly fine.

Especially I don't like my packages being FTBFS due to other packagers
pushing their updates everywhere. If there was at least included
mass-prebuild step in the initial list to ensure there is no breakage in
dependent packages.
This is part of the "vetting the update before pushing" step. We have
tools that package maintainers can/should use to see what packages
depend on a particular one before updating it (fedrq is one I believe,
but folks have their own dnf based scripts/commands).

I've also filed an RFE to the-new-hotness to add dependency information
to the "new package version is available" bug report some time ago,
which would help ensure maintainers are aware of the update's impact:

https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/issues/545

We're discussing a different topic now.


Sorry but we don't. The thread started with: "For the 99% of packages I maintain I usually perform the same workflow when updating them". I don't see that percentage could be in line with the update policy.


The thread was "these steps are
repetitive, how do folks automate them", and we're now discussing
"maintainers should remember to check the impact of update before
pushing them".


Being maintainer of ~200 packages, I certainly don't suffer the repetitiveness, because there is rarely need to update the stable releases, following the update policy.


Vít

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to