Adam Williamson wrote:
The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages
pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will
be) approved as updates. So it's perfectly possible people who installed
pre-releases will have what you term 'unwanted'
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages
pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will
be) approved as updates. So it's perfectly possible people who
On 05/19/2010 04:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Yes, the broken decision was to enable updates-testing by default for
prereleases and we should never do this again. It just can't work, because
updates-testing is like the Red Pill:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
While I understand the decision behind enabling updates-testing repo by
default, I think it should be turned off much earlier, perhaps during
the beta release phase. Due to the workflow I follow, one of the
problems
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:50 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages
pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will
be)
If I haven't missed something, it looks like there was only a 2-day
window (during a weekend) between the update to fedora-release-13-1
(which enabled updates and disabled updates-testing)
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-May/090747.html
and the next push to updates-testing
Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com writes:
The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages
pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will
be) approved as updates. So it's perfectly possible people who installed
pre-releases will have what
