On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 11:49 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:02:00 +0100
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> > That's simply because you're failing to consider that things which
> > are in testing have (high) potential to make it into stable.
> That's "updates < testing" ... a necessary condition, because
> otherwise you won't be able to install a package from "testing".
And if you make the next logical leap, F7-updates < F8(-updates). So
your F7-updates-testing build had better have a lower nevra than that
which is either going into f8-updates(-testing), or already released on
F8 in some way.
... yes, testing == scratch, volatile ... potential junk,
you're on your
own, use at your risk.
> > It would be
> > better for maintainers to fix nevra issues while the build is still
> > in testing than to wait until it hits updates.
> Are you saying packages in "testing" automatically hit
"updates"?
No, only if a maintainer chooses such and certain requirements happen,
like karma points reaching a threshold.
> This would be the next design flaw. This renders "testing" further
> useless.
>
> I sense we seemingly we have a basic divergence on the purpose of
> testing.
>
> You seem to understand it as a "delay queue" for updates, giving some
> people a chance to check packages and withdraw them when they feel
> they need to.
>
> I understand "testing" as "auxiliary repo" taking candidate
packages
> for "updates", which generally should only be pushed by request, not
> "by timeout" nor by "no receiving complaints".
It's not a me or you thing. This seems to be a you vs the rest of the
maintainers thing.
I realize you don't want to discuss but to "pull your
cart through",
Sarge - sad, ...
Ralf