On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Owen Taylor wrote:
> I build an update for foo and bar.
> foo is a critical update
> bar is not a critical update
> bar requires that version of foo.
That doesn't seem to be a problem - foo will go out, and bar will wait
until Tuesday. But if you meant the reverse - a critical update that
depends on a non-critical update, then, in my understanding we *already*
have this problem.
I did mean the reverse - sorry for getting it backward there.
If foo and bar are submitted as independent updates, and only bar
sufficient karma, or foo is "critical path" and needs releng approval
and bar isn't, then we push bar out and not foo and we have a broken
The answer I've heard on this is that foo and bar should have
submitted as one update. Obviously it would be better if our tooling
could detect this problem and manage it sensibly.
so it seems like in lieu of changing our updates policy right now we
1. continue the autoqa work
2. help those checks have more/better meaning for our
and then reassess things once the autoqa is in place and being enforced?