Followup again on "'int' for 'latest'" patch

[Ralph Bean]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:03:53PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:40:10 -0600
> Dennis Gilmore <dennis at ausil.us> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:40:52 -0500
> > Ralph Bean <rbean at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello again, following up here on this patch:
> > > 
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/buildsys/2015-January/004470.html
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/buildsys/2014-August/004344.html
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084583
> > > 
> > > Should I make some changes?  Is the patch generally unacceptable?
> > 
> > I do not know that we want to approach things in that manner. I would
> > much rather put automated qa and testing in place post build and pre
> > release and just ship things known to be not broken. though there
> > could always be cases that slip through.
> 
> I wonder if we could do the same thing we are doing with deltas now. 
> 
> ie, ship 2 versions of every package (current and previous) and then
> over time remove the previous ones only keeping more recent ones. 
> 
> So, say you have foo-1.0-1.fc23 and a foo-2.0-1.fc23 is pushed. Keep
> both for a week, then remove foo-1.0-1.fc23, with the idea being that
> if there is some horrible problem with the package people are likely to
> notice in a week or two and immediately downgrade, but after a few
> weeks the likelyhood is that the new version is ok. 

For this we could just pass latest=2 to koji.  Either way, it makes
the koji api more flexible.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/buildsys/attachments/20150217/56b223f5/attachment.sig>