On 04/19/2010 03:43 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> We have in the past, and it wont get support for most of the life of
> 1.0
We done it *once* in past. But not always.
For F-12 we built packages month after release.
For F-11 month before release.
For F-10 three month after release
And even if we did it only once ... I do not think it was wise movement.
And F-11 will be supported for more then 2 months, but we are releasing
Spacewalk now.
Commiting this changes 3 hours after sending this proposal is not
enough. IMO. I reverted this commit in master.
I leave fate of you commit in SPACEWALK-1.0 branch in hand of release
nanny and on the opinion of others.
I find that to be unacceptable. Adding back F-11 would be ok but just
reverting is downright rude.
This comes to two thing:
a) do we want to build F-13 packages on beta? Unless we have some tool
for rebuild after F-13, I'm strongly against it. It can broke
functionality later if not rebuilt. We can discuss it, but until
majority agree, I think we should not add it. Or unless it is released.
b) do we want to remove support of F-11, when it has still 1/6 of its
life remaining? Again we can discuss it, but removing it now would cut
off those who are still using F-11.
So I decided that without prior discussion I want to have F-13 removed
and F-11 added. Which leads to complete revert of your commit.
Do not take it personally. If others will disagree with me, I will be
first who will revert my own revert.
I would like to ask others for their opinion.
And there was one other reason, if you look on Koji:
http://koji.rhndev.redhat.com/koji/tasks?state=failed&view=tree&method=all&order=-completion_time
Your step has as consequence completely overfilled koji with failing
tasks. Doing such change on Friday is really not good thing.
--
Miroslav Suchy
Red Hat Satellite Engineering
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
