acceptability of updates-testing breakage vs. rawhide breakage
h.reindl at thelounge.net
Fri Jan 10 14:58:43 UTC 2014
Am 10.01.2014 15:56, schrieb Chuck Anderson:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:42:33AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 10:13 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>> This appears to have also broken Fedora 19 updates-testing, which is
>>> even less acceptable than breaking rawhide.
>> Eh, I'd suggest not. updates-testing is actually explicitly meant as a
>> place to catch this kind of problem, whereas we're trying to keep
>> Rawhide rolling and especially try not to break nightly image
>> generation. At least we can vote broken things in updates-testing down.
> Wow, really? updates-testing is allowed to be more broken than
> rawhide? So why don't we just do all development in updates-testing,
> and don't push these changes to rawhide until they pass the
> updates-testing karma?
> This is not how I understand these things should work. I think this
> attitude will push even fewer people to run with updates-testing
normally nothing should be broken and if it has to be fixed
i run updates-testing daily on all of my non-production machines for years
and in case of for me really interesting packages i take them straight
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the devel