On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 19:48 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:40:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> This is just a bunch of entirely unsupported assertions, and thus not
> worth the time to respond to.
Same applies to your usage scenario. Personal experience is just that:
Yes, but the burden of proof always lies with those who want to change
stuff. I've got the easy job here: I just get to say 'look, if you want
to change everything, provide some concrete evidence:
a) that there's a problem
b) that the changes will solve it
c) that they won't create larger problems than the ones they solve'
That's always how it works. You have to provide a justification for
change. No justification is really needed for no-change.
Great! Then something else is the cause, such as editing bodhi
replacing builds or removing them. Whatever. Or else "dnf" would not find
installed packages with no reference in bodhi. And previous releases of
a package in the repo still get deleted, breaking history undo.
Well, yes. I don't think it's ever been claimed that 'history undo' is
guaranteed to always work. We've never claimed to keep every build that
at some point landed in updates-testing or updates there forever, so
far as I know.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net