Rawhide boot problems

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Mon Sep 10 22:29:36 UTC 2012

On 2012-09-10 15:22, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 10.09.12 15:14, Adam Williamson (awilliam at redhat.com) wrote:
>> On 2012-09-10 15:03, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> >
>> >The hard reality is that branched and rawhide are getting pretty 
>> much
>> >the same set of packages currently. It's a very nice view to let
>> >development go ahead in rawhide, and to stabilize branched. But we
>> >only
>> >have so many developers and everyone is focusing on branched, 
>> leaving
>> >rawhide broken.
>> I don't think that's true, actually. There certainly are devs who
>> take advantage of the model. Lennart wrote that 'everyone' has to
>> for it to be valuable, but that isn't true at all.
>> I can recall at least two notifications to the list about updates to
>> major libraries happening in Rawhide that aren't happening in F18.
>> One of them is boost: it's up a whole major version in Rawhide
>> compared to F18. That's exactly how the policy is supposed to work.
>> I forget exactly what the other was, but I know there was at least
>> one more.
>> Another example from today - the Postgresql maintainer mailed the
>> list to say that now F18 is delayed he'll be putting the new version
>> in F18, but until then, he was planning to have the newer version in
>> Rawhide only - again, exactly how the policy is supposed to work.
>> Those are just examples from memory, not even looking through the
>> archives.
> What I am proposing is to get rid of the "master" branch, so that 
> people
> can just branch off F-19 as early and as late as they want, and they 
> do
> it from F-18 on their own. The mass branching would go away this way,
> (might only be a side-effect of distro-wide rebuilds).
> This way, Lennart would just maintain systemd in the F-18 branch. And
> then in a month or two he would branch F-19 off this branch. And then
> when he is ready to open F-20 he would branch it off F-19. And so
> on. But the time where Lennart decides to branch off is up to him.
> In your example above the boost maintainer otoh could branch off F-19
> much earlier than Lennart branches off systemd. Both packagers would
> have full flexibility when to branch off.
> This would give packagers much more flexibility about branching and
> would also simplify our model as the master branch would just go
> away... One branch less that can be confused is a win for
> everybody.

I don't see a problem with that, but then I'm just the monkey :)
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list