acceptability of updates-testing breakage vs. rawhide breakage

Mamoru TASAKA mtasaka at
Fri Jan 10 15:49:22 UTC 2014

Chuck Anderson wrote, at 01/10/2014 11:56 PM +9:00:
> 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
> enabled.

Exactly.  Such possibly-breaking tests must be done on rawhide first,
not after on testing on stable branch,
and at least the package maintainer must get confident that enough tests are
done on rawhide before pushing such packages into testing on stable branch.
That testing on stable branch is more broken than rawhide is not Fedora users
or developers expect.


More information about the devel mailing list