On Monday 19 April 2010 10:53:39 am Miroslav Suchý wrote: > 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. adding F-11 back is simple, I probably should have just kept it also > > 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. You also switched master from building in the 1.1 tags to the 0.9 tags in your revert. > 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. None of those failures were any of my doing. it looks like Shannon does not have the proper permissions to do a build from SRPM. I just now fixed his permissions. Dennis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
