On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 05:39 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> So I really see two options for improving these situations:
> 1)
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/663 I opened this ticket two
> months ago (to silence). The idea would be to add the ability for
> bodhi
> updates to mark other updates as a dependency, so that in the example
> above, Firefox could have been marked as ready for stable, but not
> pushed until the nss update was also marked as ready for stable. This
> to
> me seems like the best long-term solution. I'd also like to mention
> that
> Ubuntu's Launchpad system has this capability.
Having this implemented manually would be great. In the future I'd
like to replace it with automatic process managed by AutoQA. AutoQA
would say Bodhi "this update can be only pushed together with this
other update, because the first one depends on the second one". The
maintainer wouldn't then be forced to create mega-updates for
dependent packages.
I'm not sure we necessarily want AutoQA to be _driving_ processes like
this, do we? Properly, it should be _verifying_ that updates are
dependency-complete, not performing the task of making them
dependency-complete. Doesn't it work better to have the
dependencies-in-updates stuff handled at the level of the existing tools
by which developers work with updates - i.e. Bodhi? Has AutoQA really
been designed to the requirements of acting as a traffic cop for Bodhi?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net