Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 06/22/2010 09:57 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:03:08 -0400, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Django 1.2.1 was recently pushed to stable in Fedora 13. This should not
>> have been done without discussion on this list.
>
> Just to understand what has happened here:
> In three weeks, nobody has added any comment to the update in bodhi.
> Has it gone unnoticed by all the people who depend on Django?

No announcement was made that there was an update available for testing. 
It only addressed one bug 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584866 - a packaging bug), 
so it wouldn't have been advertised that way either.

>
>> Django 1.2 breaks API
>> with Django 1.1, resulting in breaking at least two Django-based
>> packages in Fedora: Transifex and ReviewBoard.
>>
>> ReviewBoard has an available upstream version that will work with either
>> (and I will now have to package early), but Transifex has no plans to
>> support Django 1.2 in the immediate future (since 1.1 will remain
>> supported upstream for some time).
>>
>> Furthermore, these issues were already discussed in the bodhi update for
>> the EPEL5 version of this package, and it was decided that the upgrade
>> was not sensible there either.
>
> When? Where? Am I right in assuming that the bodhi update has been
> _deleted_ by the packager?

Yes, the EPEL 5 bodhi update was deleted after myself and several other 
members of the Fedora Infrastructure group gave it negative karma.

>
>> After that discussion, it seems to me
>> that it would have been sensible to raise a discussion about pushing
>> this update into a stable Fedora. (Rawhide was fine, as it would have
>> given Transifex several months to add compatibility).


-- 
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761

Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/